2-DHHS26377 Scoresheet PATH.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- DHHS26377
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) solicitation (DHHS26377) issued by the Utah Department of Human and Human Services. The scoresheet is designed to evaluate proposals from up to seven offerors competing for funding to provide community-based services to seriously mentally ill individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The evaluation framework establishes two mandatory pass/fail requirements: documentation of 501(c)(3) nonprofit status or local government entity designation, and proof of a minimum three years' experience providing direct services to the homeless population. The scoresheet contains 14 scoreable technical criteria worth a combined 200 points, with a required minimum threshold of 120 points (60%) for proposals to advance in the evaluation process.
The 14 technical evaluation criteria assess offerors' capability to provide comprehensive services including identification of and outreach to individuals in greatest need, screening and diagnostic treatment, habilitation and rehabilitation services, community mental health and recovery support services, alcohol and drug treatment services, staff training, case management, referrals for primary health services and job training, housing services, and partnerships within the Continuum of Care region. Criteria are weighted by importance, with outreach services and budget justification narrative each weighted at 12.5 percent (25 points maximum), while staff training and population served criteria are weighted at 2.5 percent (5 points maximum). Evaluators score each criterion on a zero-to-five scale, with five representing proposals that address and exceed all RFP requirements and zero representing proposals that fail to address requirements or cannot be assessed due to missing information. The PATH program funds community-based outreach, mental health and substance abuse treatment, case management, and limited housing services through federal grant funding designated for seriously mentally ill individuals.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1-DHHS26377 PATH RFP Instructions and Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-DHHS26377 PATH SOW OSUMH.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-DHHS26377 Budget Utilization Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 9-DHHS26377 RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Form 2a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement.pdf | ||
| 7-DHHS Client Service Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Form 1 IRS Form W-9.pdf | ||
| 8-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
| Projects for the Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) |
| SOLICITATION # DHHS26377 |
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET |
Vendor:
Evaluator: Date:
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| 1 | Did the Offeror sumbit documdntation proving it to be either a non-profit organization with a 501c(3) status, or a local government entity? | |
| 2 | Did the Offeror submit documentation proving it has a minimum of three years' experience providing direct services to the homeless population? |
| 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 | How well did the offeror describe how they will identify and provide services for individuals most in need? (SOW 4.1(1)) | 1 | 2.5% | 5.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 2 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide Outreach Services including prioritization of those with SMI who are Experiencing Homelessness or are at Imminent Risk of Becoming Homeless? (SOW 4.1(2)(A)) | 5 | 12.5% | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 3 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide screening and diagnostic treatment services? (SOW 4.1(2)(B)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 4 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide habilitation and rehabilitation services? (SOW 4.1(2)(C)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 5 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide community mental health services, including recovery support services (e.g., peer specialist or recovery coaches)? (SOW 4.1(2)(D)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 6 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide alcohol or drug treatment services? (SOW 4.1(2)(E)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 7 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide staff training, including training for people who work in mental health clinics, substance use programs, and other sites where Individuals Experiencing Homelessness require services? (SOW 4.1(2)(F)) | 1 | 2.5% | 5.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 8 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide case management services? (SOW 4.1(2)(G)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 9 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide referrals for primary health services, job training, educational services, and relevant housing services including use of peer providers who can use their lived experience to help ensure services are successfully accessed by homeless individuals with SMI or CODs? (SOW 4.1(2)(H)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 10 | How well did the offeror describe how they will provide housing services? (SOW 4.1(2)(I)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 11 | How well did the offeror describe how they will partner and collaborate with community services providers within the Continuum of Care region? (SOW 4.1(2)(J)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 12 | How well did the offeror describe how they will participate in local planning, coordinating, and assessment activities with the local homeless council to include support for veterans? (SOW 4.1(2)(K)) | 3 | 7.5% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 13 | How well did the offeror describe how they will ensure your services reach the intended population to be served. An eligible PATH individual is a person who is Experiencing Homelessness or at risk of homelessness and SMI or Co-Occurring Disorders (“COD”)? (SOW 2.1) | 1 | 2.5% | 5.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 14 | How well did the offeror describe their budget justification narrative summarizing the budget proposed in Form #4 Budget Utilization Form? | 5 | 12.5% | 25.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 200.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status |
| 60% | 120.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 200.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary DHHS26377 Projects for the Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) 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 | Did the Offeror submit documentation proving it has a minimum of three years' experience providing direct services to the homeless population? | |||||||
| 2 | Have a minimum of three years' experience providing direct services to the homeless population. |
| Weight | Technical Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G |
| Criteria #1: Identify and provider services for individuals most in need | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 1.0 | Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 5) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #2: Outreach services including prioritization of those with SMI who are experiencing homelessness or at immenent risk of becoming homeless | ||||||||
| 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: Screening and diagnosic treatment services | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #4: Habilitation and rehabilitation services | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #5: Community mental health services | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #5 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #6: Alcohol or drug treatment services | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #6 - Total Points (Total Possible 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #7: Staff straining | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 1.0 | Criteria #7 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 5) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #8: Case management services | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #8 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #9: Referrals for primary health services, job training, educational services, and relevant housing services | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #9 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #10: Housing services | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #10 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #11: Partnerships in the Continuum of Care region | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #11 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #12: Participation in local planning, coordinationm and assessment activities to include veteran support | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #12 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 15) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #13: Population served | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 1.0 | Criteria #13 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 5) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #14: 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 | |
| 5.0 | Criteria #14 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 25) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = 200) Minimum Threshold = 120 | 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 = 200) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Grand Total Points (Total Possible = 200) | 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 .