1-DHHS26117 Attachment F Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 66 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Mobile MRI and CT Services
- Solicitation number
- DHHS26117
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Solicitation #DHHS26117 for Mobile MRI and CT Services to be provided at Utah State Correctional Facility. The solicitation seeks a vendor to provide self-contained mobile Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging services, including a fully certified mobile imaging unit with minimum 1.5T MRI and 64-slice CT technology operated by ARRT-certified, Utah-licensed technologists. The contract requires Board-Certified Radiologist interpretation of images with secure delivery of final reports within 24 to 48 hours and STAT preliminary results within 4 hours. The offeror must maintain an onboard medical-grade HVAC system and ensure all equipment and units are fully licensed and registered for medical operation within the State of Utah. The evaluation process accommodates up to seven offerors and involves five evaluators assessing proposals against technical and cost criteria.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a weighted scoring structure allocating 70 percent of total evaluation points (1,000 possible points) to technical criteria and 30 percent (428.6 possible points) to cost evaluation. Technical criteria include offeror qualifications and experience (60-point weight), Board-Certified Radiologist diagnostic interpretation capabilities (35-point weight), certified equipment capabilities (40-point weight), experience providing mobile diagnostic imaging in the Wasatch Front geographic area (30-point weight), and compliance with scheduling requirements including a maximum 30-day order-to-test-result turnaround (35-point weight). A minimum required technical point threshold of 600 points (60 percent) must be achieved for proposal approval. The cost evaluation formula awards full points to the lowest proposed price, with other offerors receiving proportional points based on their price relative to the lowest bid; offerors with proposals exceeding double the lowest price receive no cost points.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 4-DHHS26117 Attachment D W9.pdf | ||
| 10-DHHS26117 Attachment E Technical Response.docx | DOCX document | |
| 11-DHHS26117 Attachment G Cost Proposal Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 3-DHHS26117 Attachment I CHS Addendum.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-DHHS26117 Attachment B Scope of Review.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-DHHS26117 Attachment H Submission Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-DHHS26117 Attachment C (a) Conflict of Interest Form.pdf | ||
| 9-DHHS26117 Request for Proposal.docx | DOCX document | |
| 8-DHHS26117 Attachment A Client Service Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-DHHS26117 Attachment C (b) Conflict of Interest Certification UGE.pdf |
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
| TITLE: Mobile MRI and CT Services | |||||||||
| SOLICITATION # DHHS26117 | |||||||||
| ATTACHMENT F: RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||||
| Vendor: | |||||||||
| Evaluator: | Date: | ||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||||
| 1 | The Offeror shall provide a fully certified mobile imaging unit with a minimum 1.5T MRI and 64-slice CT technology. | ||||||||
| 2 | The Offeror shall provide ARRT-certified, Utah-licensed technologists to operate equipment. | ||||||||
| 3 | The Offeror shall maintain an onboard medical-grade HVAC system and ensure all equipment and units are fully licensed and registered for medical operation within the State of Utah. | ||||||||
| 4 | The Offeror shall provide a Board-Certified Radiologist to interpret images and securely deliver final reports within 24 to 48 hours and STAT preliminary results within 4 hours. | ||||||||
| 0 | |||||||||
| Score will be assigned as follows: | ` | ||||||||
| 0 = The proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information. | |||||||||
| 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 in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner. | |||||||||
| 3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all of the 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. | |||||||||
| 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP. | |||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | ||||||||
| 1 | Describe the Offeror’s qualifications, including the skills, experience, training, and management procedures required to successfully administer the onsite MRI and CT within a correctional facility. | 60 | 30.0% | 300.0 | 0.0 | 180.0 | |||
| Describe Offeror’s capabilities in providing diagnostic interpretation by a Board-Certified Radiologist within 48 hours of the procedure. | 35 | 17.5% | 175.0 | 0.0 | 105.0 | ||||
| 3 | Describe Offeror’s capabilities in providing certified, Utah-licensed onsite MRI and CT equipment. | 40 | 20.0% | 200.0 | 0.0 | 120.0 | |||
| 4 | Describe Offeror’s experience providing mobile diagnostic imaging services in the Wasatch Front geographic area. | 30 | 15.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | 90.0 | |||
| 5 | Describe how the Offeror will comply with CHS scheduling requirements with a maximum 30-day order-to-test-result turnaround. | 35 | 17.5% | 175.0 | 0.0 | 105.0 | |||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 1000.0 | 0.0 | 600.0 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status | ||||
| 60% | 600 | 0.0 | 0.0% | Fail | |||||
| Cost | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 30% | 428.6 | 0.0 | |||||||
| * The following cost formula will be used: 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. An offeror whose Proposed Price is more than double (200%) the Lowest Proposed Price will receive no points. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (2- Proposed Price/Lowest Proposed Price). | |||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 70% | 1000 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 30% | 429 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1429 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| XX##### Solicitation Name Scoresheet Summary | ||||||||
| Signatures: | Date: | |||||||
| Evaluator 1 | __________________ | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | __________________ | |||||||
| Evaluator 3 | __________________ | |||||||
| Evaluator 4 | __________________ | |||||||
| Evaluator 5 | __________________ | |||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | |
| 1 | ||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||
| Weight | Technical Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G |
| Criteria #1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #5 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #5 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #6 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #6 - Total Points (Total Possible XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #7 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #7 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = XX) Minimum Threshold = XX | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total Cost Points | Cost Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G |
| Cost | ||||||||
| Cost Points | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Score Summary | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total Cost Points (Total Possible = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Grand Total Points (Total Possible = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .