Evaluation Criteria1
MULTIFUNCTIONAL COPIER MACHINES & SERVICE CONTRACT RFP BEST VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following is the weighted scale criteria for evaluating RFPs for Multifunctional
Copier Machines and Service. Proposals are due on June 5, 2018. Cost of Equipment and Services: Cost will be scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with the
high score being a 5. The bidder that has the lowest total cost, as indicated on the Bid
Form, will be awarded 5 points as will any other bidder within 15% of the total cost.
Bidders not within this range will be scored as follows:
1. 15.1% to 25% above the lowest total cost bidder will receive 4 points.
2. 25.1% to 35% above the lowest total cost bidder will receive 3 points. 3. 35.1% to 45% above the lowest total cost bidder will receive 2 points.
4. 45.1% to 55% above the lowest total cost bidder will receive 1 point.
5. Bidders in excess of 55% above the lowest total cost bidder will receive 0 points.
Responsiveness to Proposal Requirements: This rating will be determined by an
evaluation of the contractor’s ability to comply with all of the requirements stipulated in
the RFP. For instance, does the contractor agree to meet District requirements and
agree to provide the services outlined in the RFP? Is the proposal clear, concise, well
organized and demonstrate both respondent’s qualifications and its ability to follow
instructions? Was a submittal letter included in the RFP that stated the proposal shall
be valid for 40 days? Was a description of the company provided? Did the contractor
provide the names of the professional(s) responsible for the contract? Did the contractor
provide a sample agreement?
Experience Providing Similar Services to Similar Agencies: This rating will be
based on staff’s analysis of the contractor’s past performance and type of work
performed with other public entities. How many local agencies and special districts has
the contractor provided similar services for and are the entities similar in size to the
District? Did the contractor provide a list of agencies for references? Did the contractor
provide any letters of recommendation?
Ability to Provide Services: This rating will be determined by staff’s analysis of
whether or not the proposed equipment meets the District’s needs. Did the contractor
include a comprehensive description of the proposed equipment? Is the proposed
equipment capable of providing the District’s requested functions? Is the proposed
equipment network capable and equal to or greater in capacity than the Sharp MX-
4111N? Did the contractor provide an installation plan for the proposed equipment that
meets the District’s scope of work?
2
Distinguishing Characteristics: This rating will be based on staff’s analysis of the
answers provided in response to the supplemental questions. What distinguishes the
contractor from other companies? Does the contractor use any specific energy
efficiency or security measures? Are there any fees associated with the conclusion or
termination of the agreement?