The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Instructions
| ATTACHMENT 2 |
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET |
| The proposal evaluation worksheet will to be used by evaluators in scoring responsive technical proposals. STATE has assigned each evaluation criterion and the relative weight. A worksheet used in the evaluation process is included in the procurement file. |
| INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATORS: STATE has assigned each evaluation criterion a specific number of points. The questions under each evaluated area help you measure the quality of the offeror’s response. Do not assign points to individual questions: instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. Make a brief comment and give the initial score of the proposal evaluation worksheet. |
| CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Each evaluator must review the list of offerors submitting proposals and determine if they or any immediate family members have a conflict of interest with regard to an offeror, in accordance with N.D.A.C. § 4-12-04-04. By signature on a proposal evaluation worksheet, evaluator is confirming no conflict of Interest exists with the offeror being evaluated. N.D.A.C. § 4-12-04-04 Link - http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/4-12-04.pdf |
| RATING SCALE FOR ASSESSING OFFEROR RESPONSES: STATE intends this rating scale to establish guidelines within that range to ensure members of the RFP evaluation committee perform their evaluation with consistency. You may assign any value for a given criteria from 0 to the maximum number of points. A zero value typically constitutes no response or an inability of the offeror to meet the criterion. In contrast, the maximum value should constitute a high standard of meeting the criterion. |
| EVALUATION WORKSHEET INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATORS: RATING SCALE: STATE intends this rating scale to establish guidelines within that range to ensure members of the RFP evaluation committee perform their evaluation with consistency. You may assign any value for a given criteria from 0 to the maximum number of points. A zero value typically constitutes no response or an inability of the offeror to meet the criterion. In contrast, the maximum value should constitute a high standard of meeting the criterion |
EXAMPLE: “Experience and Qualifications” is an evaluation criterion receiving a maximum of 40 possible points. The rating scale would be as follows:
| EXAMPLE RATING SCALE (40 POINT Maximum) | |
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION |
| 0 | None - Not addressed or response of no value |
| 1 - 9 | Fair - Limited applicability |
| 10 - 19 | Good - Some applicability |
| 20 - 29 | Very Good - Substantial applicability |
| 30 - 40 | Excellent - Total applicability |
| COST PROPOSAL: Offerors are required to submit cost proposals as directed in the RFP. The pricing will not be disclosed to the evaluation committee until after the initial evaluation of proposals is completed. | |
Methodology
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET | |
| TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING | |
| RFP Number and Title | 117-25-04, 2025, 2026, and 2027 Financial Statement Audits - Retirement and Investment Office and Public Employees Retirement System |
| Name of Offeror | State Auditor's Office |
| Name of Evaluator | |
| Date | |
| Evaluator's point total for Methodology | |
| SECTION A: METHODOLOGY | |
| Forty (40) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion. | |
| RATING SCALE | |
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION |
| 0 - 8 | Poor. Not addressed or response of no value |
| 9 - 16 | Fair - Limited applicability |
| 17 - 24 | Good - Some applicability |
| 25 - 32 | Very Good - Substantial applicability |
| 33 - 40 | Excellent - Total applicability |
| Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. | |
| 0 |
| QUESTIONS | COMMENTS |
| 1. How well has the offeror described their strategy for accomplishing the scope of work requirements? What are the strengths of the proposed methodology? | |
| 2. Are there aspects of the proposed scope of work strategy of concern or that requires clarification or further information? | |
| 3. How well has the offeror identified pertinent issues and risks related to the audit? | |
| 4. Is the audit work plan comprehensive and adequate to meet the requirements of this audit? | |
Management Plan
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET | |
| TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING | |
| RFP Number and Title | 117-25-04, 2025, 2026, and 2027 Financial Statement Audits - Retirement and Investment Office and Public Employees Retirement System |
| Name of Offeror | State Auditor's Office |
| Name of Evaluator | |
| Date | |
| Evaluator's point total for Management Plan | |
| SECTION B: MANAGEMENT PLAN | |
| Twenty-five (25) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion. | |
| RATING SCALE | |
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION |
| 0 - 5 | Poor. Not addressed or response of no value |
| 6 - 10 | Fair - Limited applicability |
| 11 - 15 | Good - Some applicability |
| 16 - 20 | Very Good - Substantial applicability |
| 21 - 25 | Excellent - Total applicability |
| Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. | |
| 0 |
| QUESTIONS | COMMENTS |
| 1. How well has the offeror followed the proposal instructions? Does the proposal contain all the requested information? | |
| 2. How well does the management plan support all of the project requirements and logically lead to the deliverables required in the RFP? | |
| 3. Does the timeline prepared by the firm meet the needs of the State Auditor's Office (SAO)? | |
| 4. Is the required travel addressed in the proposal? | |
| 5. Is the proposal practical and feasible? | |
| 6. Has the offeror provided information about the organization of the project team and proposed work project team members will perform, and estimated hours? Does the proposed work breakdown seem appropriate to accomplish the requirements? | |
| 7. If a subcontractor will perform work on the project or joint venture is proposed, has the offeror provided the requested information? How extensive is the experience and qualifications of the subcontractor or other party of the joint venture? | |
Experience & Qualifications
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET | |
| TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING | |
| RFP Number and Title | 117-25-04, 2025, 2026, and 2027 Financial Statement Audits - Retirement and Investment Office and Public Employees Retirement System |
| Name of Offeror | State Auditor's Office |
| Name of Evaluator | 0 |
| Date | 12/31/99 |
| Evaluator's point total for Experience and Qualifications | |
| SECTION C: EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS | |
| Fifteen (15) of the total possible evaluation points will be assigned to this criterion. | |
| RATING SCALE | |
| POINT VALUE | EXPLANATION |
| 0 - 2 | Poor. Not addressed or response of no value |
| 3 - 5 | Fair - Limited applicability |
| 6 - 8 | Good - Some applicability |
| 9 - 11 | Very Good - Substantial applicability |
| 12 - 15 | Excellent - Total applicability |
| Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion. | |
| 0 |
| QUESTIONS | COMMENTS |
| 1. Does the offeror demonstrate the minimum requirements of the RFP? | |
| 2. How well has the firm demonstrated experience in completing similar audits satisfactorily and timely? | |
| 3. Does the firm have experience with the State Auditor? | |
| 4. Does the firm size, structure, and resources available appear to be adequate? | |
| 5. Was the SAO able to reach references provided and were the references provided beneficial to the vendor? | |
Evaluation Score
| PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET | | | |
| TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING | | | |
| RFP Number and Title | 117-25-04, 2025, 2026, and 2027 Financial Statement Audits - Retirement and Investment Office and Public Employees Retirement System | | |
| Name of Offeror | State Auditor's Office | | |
| Name of Evaluator | 0 | | |
| Date | 12/31/99 | | |
| OFFEROR EVALUATION SCORE | | | |
| CRITERION | | MAX POINTS | SCORE |
| A. Methodology | | 40 | 0 |
| B. Management Plan | | 25 | 0 |
| C. Experience and Qualifications | | 15 | 0 |
| TOTAL TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE | | | 0 |