2-GN27-1 - Scoresheet (CP - AG).xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted

Attached to
Courtesy Posting - LEGAL SERVICES TO ASSIST THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH PBM OPIOID LITIGATION
Solicitation number
GN27-1
Issued by
Utah

About this file

This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for legal services to assist the Utah Office of the Attorney General with PBM Opioid Litigation under Solicitation #GN27-1. The scoresheet establishes a multi-stage evaluation process for law firms competing to provide litigation support services related to pharmacy benefit manager opioid claims. Proposals are evaluated through mandatory requirements verification followed by technical scoring in Stage 2, interviews in Stage 3, and final technical proposal evaluation in Stage 4.

The evaluation framework allocates 70 percent of total points (700 of 1,000 possible points) to technical criteria, weighted across four categories: Qualifications of Lead Counsel and Senior Attorneys (40 percent weight, 200 points), Quality and Capabilities of the Litigation Team (35 percent weight, 175 points), Vision and Strategy in PBM Opioid Litigation (40 percent weight, 200 points), and Financial Capability to pursue complex litigation (25 percent weight, 125 points). Proposals must achieve a minimum average score of 4.0 in Stage 2 and earn at least 500 points in Stage 4 to advance. Cost evaluation comprises the remaining 30 percent of total points (300 points maximum), calculated using a baseline contingency fee formula where the baseline is the greater of the lowest maximum contingency fee percentage among qualified proposals or 75 percent of the median average maximum contingency fee percentage. Mandatory requirements include certifications regarding litigation team experience and qualifications, absence of conflicts of interest, legal malpractice insurance coverage of at least $5,000,000 per incident, background check completion, and non-debarment status.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
1-GN27-1 - PBM Opioid Litigation RFP.docx DOCX document

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

Legal Services to assist with PBM OPIOID LITIGATION
SOLICITATION #GN27-1
RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Score will be assigned as follows:
0 = Fail, the proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information
Firm Name: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 described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner
Evaluator:3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all 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
Date:5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP
Minimum Mandatory RequirementsRFP SectionEvaluation (Pass/Fail)
1Offeror must certify it meets the experience and requirements of the Litigation Team.
2Offeror must certify that no members of the Litigation Team to whom a matter is assigned or the law firm that employs them have, or appear to have, any conflict of interest in providing the assigned Legal Services.
3Offeror must certify they have or will commit to acquiring legal malpractice insurance coverage in an amount not less than $5,000,000 per incident, which covers all attorneys and paralegals from that firm who are part of the Litigation Team.
4Offeror must certify it will complete a background check.
5Offeror must certify that they are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment or ineligible for contracting by a governmental entity.
Scoreable Technical Criteria - Stage 2Evaluator Score (0-5)Possible Score
AQualifications of Lead Counsel and Senior Attorneys, including intellectual and interpersonal skills.5.00
BQuality and capabilities of the firm(s) and other members of the Litigation Team.5.00
CVision and strategy in pursuing the PBM Opioid Litigation.5.00
DFinancial capability to pursue and complete large, complex litigation.5.00
5.00
Required Technical Score Threshold to Advance to Stage 3 - InterviewsMin Average ScoreAverage ScoreEvaluation
4.0ERROR:#DIV/0!ERROR:#DIV/0!

Stage 4: Final Technical Proposal evaluation Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned

AQualifications of Lead Counsel and Senior Attorneys, including intellectual and interpersonal skills.40200.000.00
BQuality and capabilities of the firm(s) and other members of the Litigation Team.35175.000.00
CVision and strategy in pursuing the PBM Opioid Litigation.40200.000.00
DFinancial capability to pursue and complete large, complex litigation.25125.000.00
0.0%700.000.00
Required Technical Point ThresholdMin Points RequiredPoints EarnedPercent EarnedEvaluation
500.00.00.0%
CostBaseline Contingent Fee %Proposed Contingent Fee %Percent of TotalPoints PossiblePoints Earned
30%300.00.0
The Attorney General's Office will use the following cost formula for the Gambling Cases: The Cost Proposal Score is the ratio of the Baseline Contingent Fee Percentage to the Qualified Proposal’s Maximum Contingent Fee Percentage, multiplied by 300 (up to a max of 300 points). The Baseline Contingent Fee Percentage is the greater of (1) the lowest maximum contingent fee percentage among all Qualified Proposals or (2) 75% of the median average maximum contingent fee percentage among all Qualified Proposal
Total Evaluation PointsPercent of TotalPoints PossiblePoints Earned
Total Technical Evaluation Points70%700.00.0
Total Cost Evaluation Points30%300.00.0
Total Evaluation Points100%1,000.00.0

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .