13-DHHS26105 Score Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 122 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Residential Treatment Services
- Solicitation number
- DHHS26105
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for DHHS Residential Solicitation #26105, issued by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services to procure residential treatment services for persons with serious emotional or behavioral disorders or disturbances. The scoresheet establishes the framework for evaluating vendor proposals across mandatory requirements and technical criteria. Mandatory requirements include: offerors must maintain a physical facility located in Utah, obtain a current DHHS Office of Licensing license for residential treatment or intermediate secure care prior to contract start, demonstrate two years of experience serving similar populations, and maintain an existing Clinical Evaluation, Treatment, Wrap Services and Forensic Evaluations contract that includes psychotherapy services, pharmacological evaluation and management, psychosocial rehabilitation, therapeutic behavioral services, mentoring, day treatment, and clinical consultation.
The technical evaluation criteria are weighted across seven scoreable areas worth a combined 350 possible points, including applicant program descriptions (admission criteria adherence, length of stay alignment, evidence-based treatment models, and behavior intervention systems), family engagement (family treatment and visitation/contact), and aftercare planning. Evaluators score proposals on a 0-5 scale, with specific service codes identified for pass/fail determination covering moderate and high problematic sexual behaviors, substance use disorder treatment, and moderate to high mental health behavioral services. Cost evaluation will be calculated using a comparative formula where the lowest proposed price receives 100 percent of cost points, with offerors exceeding double the lowest price receiving no points. The evaluation panel consists of up to five evaluators whose scores are averaged and totaled to determine final vendor rankings and contract award.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
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
| DHHS RESIDENTIAL |
| SOLICITATION #26105 |
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET |
Vendor:
Evaluator: Date:
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| 1 | Offeror must have a physical facility located in the State of Utah. Please certify that you meet this requirement and list the address: | |
| 2 | Prior to the contract start date, the Contractor must have a current license from the DHHS Office of Licensing (“DHHS/OL”) for residential treatment or intermediate secure care. | |
| 3 | Offeror must have 2 years of experience serving similar populations. Please certify that you meet this requirement. | |
| 4 | Offeror must have a Clinical Evaluation, Treatment, Wrap Services and Forensic Evaluations contract for psychotherapy services; pharmacological evaluation and management of services; psychosocial rehabilitation services; therapeutic behavioral services; mentoring services; day treatment services; and clinical consultation prior to contracting. Please provide the contract number for your Clinical Evaluation, Treatment, Wrap Services and Forensic Evaluations contract. |
| Score will be assigned as follows: |
| 0 = The proposal fails to address the requirements or crieteria 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 requriements 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 ID#AAAAOnjL1Xg April Graham (DHHS) (2021-08-31 22:11:44) @spencerhall@utah.gov @janestecklein@utah.gov do these values have to be done prior to the RFP going out?
_Assigned to spencerhall@utah.gov_ ID#AAAAOVe0bzw Spencer Hall (DHHS) (2021-08-31 22:42:30) @aprilgraham@utah.gov Yes. The criteria weights are an essential part of the RFP that must be published with the RFP. In this spreadsheet, the % of Tech Criteria should auto-calculate based on the criteria weight.
ID#AAAAOVtxUgQ April Graham (DHHS) (2021-09-01 00:02:40)
| I need some help with this? Can we touch base tomorrow? | Points Possible | Points | ||||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||
| A. APPLICANTS PROGRAM | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| A1 | Describe how the applicant will adhere to the admission criteria identified in the scope of work and admit all Persons that meet criteria referred to their program. | 10 | 14.3% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |||
| A2 | Describe the program's length of stay and how it aligns with the targeted length of stay criteria described in the scope of work | 10 | 14.3% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |||
| A3 | Submit program manual that describes the evidence- based model used that is shown to reduce recidivism. How it is implemented from clinical intervention to group milieu. Describe the evidence-based treatment models utilized. If you utilize multiple evidence-based models, describe specifically how they are integrated. | 10 | 14.3% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |||
| A4 | Describe the behavior intervention system and how it is related to your evidence-based treatments. | 10 | 14.3% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |||
| B. FAMILY ENGAGEMENT | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| B1 | Describe Family Treament including behavioral skills training for the family. | 10 | 14.3% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |||
| B2 | Describe the program’s family visitation and other contact. | 10 | 14.3% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |||
| C. AFTERCARE | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| C1 | Submit an example of an aftercare plan. | 10 | 14.3% | 50.0 | 0.0 | |||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 350.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Cost | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| 0.0 | 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 | 0% | 350.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 350.0 | 0.0 |
| Specific Services Codes | Pass/Fail | |
| YSE | Moderate problematic sexual behariors (ajudicated). | |
| YSE | High problematic sexual behariors (Non-ajudicated). | |
| YSF | High problematic sexual behariors (NOJOS Level 6). | |
| YDE | Sustance use disorder treatment. | |
| DME/YME | Moderate mental health behavioral. | |
| DMF/YMF | High mental health behavioral. |
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 .