Award of Master Agreement(s. Award shall be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal is the most advantageous to Oklahoma and NASPO ValuePoint Participating States, taking into consideration price and the other evaluation factors set forth in this request for proposals. A multiple award is highly anticipated. The Participating States reserve the right to award items separately or by grouping items, or by total lot.
Award of Master Agreement(s. In order to be eligible for a contract award under this RFP a proposal must have a combined total score, of OEM, technical points, and cost points meeting the minimum threshold for award for the given Category as provided below: Product Category Total Possible Technical Points* Total Possible Cost Points Grand Total Possible Points Minimum Threshold for Award Unified Communications 500.0 166.7 666.7 466.69 Networking 500.0 166.7 666.7 466.69 Routers, Switches, Security, and Storage Networking 500.0 166.7 666.7 466.69 Wireless 500.0 166.7 666.7 466.69 Facility Management, Monitoring, and Control 500.0 166.7 666.7 466.69
Award of Master Agreement(s. Award shall be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is the most advantageous to the State of New Mexico and NASPO ValuePoint, taking into consideration price and the other evaluation factors set forth in this Request for Proposal. Offerors within a competitive range to be established through the determination of natural break for each tier in the scoring of the evaluation factors may be considered for award.
Award of Master Agreement(s. Award shall be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is the most advantageous to the State of Alaska, taking into consideration price and the other evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation. The awarded Contractor(s) will have a maximum of 60 calendar days after award to post their fully functional NASPO ValuePoint webpage on their company website. As soon as the fully functional website is posted, they must notify the Alaska Contract Lead who will then sign the Master Agreement and finalize the contract award. Failure to meet the 60-day requirement will be considered a default and may lead to cancelation of the award.
Award of Master Agreement(s. Award shall be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal is the most advantageous to the State of Nevada and NASPO ValuePoint, taking into consideration price and the other evaluation factors set forth in this request for proposals. Upon award of contracts, proposal files are public records and available for review at the offices of the Lead State by appointment.
Award of Master Agreement(s. Subject to protests, if any, Enterprise Services and the ASB for each category will enter into a Master Agreement as set forth in
Award of Master Agreement(s. It is anticipated that this RFP will result in multiple contract awards. The methodology or formula that will be used to determine the number of contract awards is: if the Offeror scores 750 points (combination of points earned from OEM Evaluated Qualifications, Product Evaluated Qualifications, and Cost Proposal Evaluation), the Offeror will be awarded a contract.
Award of Master Agreement(s. Award shall be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is the most advantageous to the State of Alaska and NASPO ValuePoint, taking into consideration price and the other evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation.
Award of Master Agreement(s. The Award of the On-Demand Remote Interpreting (OPI and VRI) and Document Translation Contract shall be made to the responsible Offeror or Offerors whose proposal(s) is/are most advantageous to the Agency taking into consideration the following weighted evaluation factors. It is anticipated that this RFP will result in Master Agreement Awards to multiple Offerors based a ‘natural break’ in the scoring to determine the finalist Offerors for consideration of Award. It is within the Lead State’s discretion to increase/decrease the amount of finalists considered for Award, and/or to Award proposals whole or in part in order to meet all geographic areas and to meet the best interests of the Lead State, Participating States and NASPO ValuePoint. Please note, however, that a serious deficiency in any one criterion may be grounds for rejection and that the listing of cost as an evaluation factor does not require the Agency to select the Offeror who submits the lowest cost proposal. The Lead State shall have the right to obtain, from any and all sources, information concerning an Offeror, which is deemed pertinent to the RFP and to consider such information in evaluating an Offeror’s proposal. The following is a summary of items where Offerors can be awarded evaluation points. These weighted factors shall be used in the evaluation of the individual Offeror responses. In the initial phase of the evaluation process, the Lead State will review all Proposals timely received. Non-responsive proposals not conforming to RFP requirements will be eliminated from further consideration. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure they meet the Mandatory Specifications of this RFP which require a Pass/Fail determination. Any proposal which fails to meet any Mandatory Specification will be considered non-responsive and eliminated from all further evaluation.
Award of Master Agreement(s. The Award of the On-Demand Remote Interpreting (OPI and VRI) and Document Translation Contract shall be made to the responsible Offeror or Offerors whose proposal(s) is/are most advantageous to the Agency taking into consideration the following weighted evaluation factors. It is anticipated that this RFP will result in Master Agreement Awards to multiple Offerors based a ‘natural break’ in the scoring to determine the finalist Offerors for consideration of Award. It is within the Lead State’s discretion to increase/decrease the amount of finalists considered for Award, and/or to Award proposals whole or in part in order to meet all geographic areas and to meet the best interests of the Lead State, Participating States and NASPO ValuePoint. Please note, however, that a serious deficiency in any one criterion may be grounds for rejection and that the listing of cost as an evaluation factor does not require the Agency to select the Offeror who submits the lowest cost proposal. The Lead State shall have the right to obtain, from any and all sources, information concerning an Offeror, which is deemed pertinent to the RFP and to consider such information in evaluating an Offeror’s proposal. The following is a summary of items where Offerors can be awarded evaluation points. These weighted factors shall be used in the evaluation of the individual Offeror responses. In the initial phase of the evaluation process, the Lead State will review all Proposals timely
