1-DHHS26131 Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 58 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Community Based Peer Support Services
- Solicitation number
- DHHS26131
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a score sheet for a contract opportunity (1-DHHS26131) issued by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services for Community Based Peer Support Services. The contract aims to provide mental health prevention and treatment services in Health Resources Services Administration-identified mental health provider shortage areas, with a requirement that at least 60% of clients receive mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The score sheet appears to be an evaluation tool designed to assess and score proposals submitted in response to this contract opportunity, though specific scoring criteria, point allocations, and evaluation categories are referenced but not detailed in this summary.
The score sheet serves as an internal evaluation instrument for the state agency to systematically review and compare bidder proposals against established criteria. As an evaluation document rather than a solicitation notice, it does not contain traditional procurement information such as due dates, bid amounts, contract terms, or renewal options. The presence of this scoring document indicates that the state has established a structured evaluation process for selecting qualified vendors to deliver peer support services in underserved mental health areas throughout Utah.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 7-DHHS26131 Community Based Peer Support SOW FINAL.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Form 2a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement.pdf | ||
| 9-DHHS26131 Community Based Peer Support Services RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-DHHS26131 RFP Budget Utilization Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-DHHS26131 RFP Instructions and Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| 8-DHHS Client Service Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| 10-DHHS26131 Community Based Peer Support Services RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Form 1 IRS Form W-9.pdf | ||
| 6-Form 2b 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
| Community-Based Peer Support Program | |||||||
| SOLICITATION # DHHS26131 | |||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||
| Vendor: | |||||||
| Evaluator: | Date: | ||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||
| 1 | The contractor shall be an emerging organization currently engaging with mental health or substance use recovery community including peer supports as defined as employing no more than 10 full time employees. (SOW 2.1(1)) | ||||||
| 2 | The contractor shall serve a population in an area with a mental health provider shortage area, as defined by the Health Resources Services Administration (https://data.hrsa.gov/topics/health-workforce/shortage-areas/by-address). (SOW 2.1(2)) | ||||||
| 3 | The contractor shall provide mental health prevention and treatment services, with a minimum 60% of the agency's service population seeking mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery services. (SOW 2.1(3)) | ||||||
| 0 | |||||||
| For criteria #1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 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. | |||||||
| *See below instructions for scoring criteria #3 | |||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points |
Earned
| 1 | How effective is the Offeror's plan to ensure at least one peer support specialist engages in the peer support steering committee or the Utah behavioral health advisory council? SOW 3.1(1) | 5 | 10.6% | 25.0 | 0.0 |
| 2 | How effective is the Offeror's plan to engage in technical assistance from a national substance use or mental health agency? SOW 3.1(2) | 5 | 10.6% | 25.0 | 0.0 |
| 3 | Which Allowable Activity did the Offeror select? Assign a score as follows: |
Offerors selecting Allowable Activity 1 will be scored a 2 (4 points total).
Offerors selecting Allowable Activity 2 will be scored a 3 (6 points total).
Offerors selecting Allowable Activity 3 will be scored a 4 (8 points total).
| Offerors selecting Allowable Activity 4 will be scored a 5 (10 points total). | 2 | 4.3% | 10.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 4 | How effective is the Offeror's plan for their selected allowable activity? SOW 3.2 | 20 | 42.6% | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 5 | How effective is the Offeror's ability and plan to track and maintain the data as described in SOW 3.3? | 5 | 10.6% | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 6 | How appropriate is the Offeror's budget as described in the budget justification narrative and budget utilization form? | 10 | 21.3% | 50.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 235.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status | ||||
| 60% | 141.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 0% | 235.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 235.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| DHHS26131 Community-Based Peer Support Program 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 | The contractor shall be an emerging organization currently engaging with mental health or substance use recovery community including peer supports as defined as employing no more than 10 full time employees. (SOW 2.1(1)) | |||||||
| 2 | The contractor shall serve a population in an area with a mental health provider shortage area, as defined by the Health Resources Services Administration (https://data.hrsa.gov/topics/health-workforce/shortage-areas/by-address). (SOW 2.1(2)) | |||||||
| 3 | The contractor shall provide mental health prevention and treatment services, with a minimum 60% of the agency's service population seeking mental health prevention, treatment, and recovery services. (SOW 2.1(3)) | |||||||
| Weight | Technical Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G |
| Criteria #1: Peer Support Specialist Engagement with Peer Support Steering Committee or Utah Behavioral Health Advisory Council | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 5.0 | Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 25) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #2: Plan to Engage in Technical Assistance | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 5.0 | Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 25) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #3: Selected allowable activity | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 2.0 | Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 10) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #4: Effectiveness of selected allowable activity | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 20.0 | Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 100) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #5: Effectiveness of data tracking and maintenance | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 5.0 | Criteria #5 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 25) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #6: Budget justification | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 10.0 | Criteria #6 - Total Points (Total Possible 50) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = 235) Minimum Threshold = 138.7 | 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 | |
| Grand Total Points (Total Possible = 235) | 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 .