RR25-12 Interactive Scoresheet Informational Only.xls

XLS spreadsheet 75 KB Posted

Attached to
UTARNG Environmental Assessment of Limited Army Aviation Support Facility at Cedar City Utah
Solicitation number
RR25-12
Issued by
Iron County, Utah

About this file

This document is an Interactive Scoresheet for the UTARNG Environmental Assessment of Limited Army Aviation Support Facility at Cedar City, Utah solicitation (RFP #RR25-12). The solicitation seeks proposals from contractors with prior experience in completing NEPA analysis to provide services for an environmental assessment of a limited Army aviation support facility in Cedar City, Utah. The evaluation criteria include company history and mission, NEPA experience, project management, and risk and resource management, with a minimum technical score threshold of 630 points out of 900 possible. The cost portion is worth 100 points out of the total 1,000 evaluation points. Proposals will be evaluated by a panel of up to 5 evaluators.

The scoring details for the technical and cost criteria are provided, along with a summary scoresheet template that lists the minimum mandatory requirements and scoring for each offeror. No other salient pricing, funding, or contracting details are included in the document.

View the file

Other files

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Score Sheet

UTARNG Environmental Assessment of Limited Army Aviation Support Facility at Cedar City Utah
SOLICITATION #RR25-12
RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Score will be assigned as follows:
0 = Fail, the proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed du to missing information
Firm Name:1 = Poor, the proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information
2 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner
Evaluator:3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP in a minimum satisfactory manner
4 = Good, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP and in some respects exceeds them
Date:5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP
Minimum Mandatory RequirementsRFP SectionEvaluation (Pass/Fail)
1Offeror MUST agree to specifications, requirements, and project timeline in the Scope of Work.
2Contractor understands clause in Terms & Conditions stating contractor may not assign,

sell, transfer, subcontract or sublet rights, or delegate any right or obligation under this Contract, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of the State Entity.

3Contractor affirms prior experience completing NEPA analysis.
0
Scoreable Technical CriteriaRFP SectionEvaluator Score (0-5)Criteria Weight% of Tech CriteriaPoints PossiblePoints
EarnedMinimum Required
1Company History and MissionTechnical2011.1%100.000.00
2NEPA ExperienceTechnical8044.4%400.000.00
3Project ManagementTechnical4022.2%200.000.00
4Risk & Resource ManagementTechnical4022.2%200.000.00
100.0%900.000.000.00
Required Technical Point ThresholdRFP SectionMin PercentMin Points RequiredPoints EarnedPercent EarnedEvaluation
70%630.00.00.0%0
CostRFP SectionLow Cost OptionOffered CostPercent of TotalPoints PossiblePoints Earned
10%100.00.0
* Purchasing will use the following cost formula: The points assigned to each offerors cost proposal will be based on the lowest proposal price. The offeror with the lowest Proposed Price will receive 100% of the price points. All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their Proposed Price is than the Lowest Proposed Price. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price).
Total Evaluation PointsPercent of TotalPoints PossiblePoints Earned
Total Technical Evaluation Points90%900.00.0
Total Cost Evaluation Points10%100.00.0
Total Evaluation Points100%1,000.00.0

Scoresheet Summary

RR25-12

UTARNG Environmental Assessment of Limited Army Aviation Support Facility at Cedar City Utah

Signatures:Date:
Evaluator 1__________________
Evaluator 2__________________
Evaluator 3__________________
Evaluator 4__________________
Evaluator 5__________________
Minimum Mandatory RequirementsOfferor AOfferor BOfferor COfferor DOfferor EOfferor FOfferor GOfferor HOfferor IOfferor JOfferor KOfferor LOfferor MOfferor NOfferor OOfferor POfferor QOfferor ROfferor SOfferor T
1Offeror MUST agree to specifications, requirements, and project timeline in the Scope of Work.
2Contractor understands clause in Terms & Conditions stating contractor may not assign,

sell, transfer, subcontract or sublet rights, or delegate any right or obligation under this Contract, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of the State Entity.

3Contractor affirms prior experience completing NEPA analysis.
WeightTechnical ScoresOfferor AOfferor BOfferor COfferor DOfferor EOfferor FOfferor GOfferor HOfferor IOfferor JOfferor KOfferor LOfferor MOfferor NOfferor OOfferor POfferor QOfferor ROfferor SOfferor T
Criteria #1

Company History & Mission

Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
20.0Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #2

NEPA Experience

Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
80.0Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 400)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #3

Project Management

Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
40.0Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 200)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Criteria #4

Risk & Resource Management

Evaluator 1
Evaluator 2
Evaluator 3
Evaluator 4
Evaluator 5
Total Average Score0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
40.0Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 200)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = 900) Minimum Threshold = 6300.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Total Cost PointsCost ScoresOfferor AOfferor BOfferor COfferor DOfferor EOfferor FOfferor GOfferor HOfferor IOfferor JOfferor KOfferor LOfferor MOfferor NOfferor OOfferor POfferor QOfferor ROfferor SOfferor T
Cost
100.0Cost Points0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Score SummaryOfferor AOfferor BOfferor COfferor DOfferor EOfferor FOfferor GOfferor HOfferor IOfferor JOfferor KOfferor LOfferor MOfferor NOfferor OOfferor POfferor QOfferor ROfferor SOfferor T
Total Technical Points (Total Possible = 900)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Total Cost Points (Total Possible = 100)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Grand Total Points (Total Possible = 1,000)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .