3-Attachment D - Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 39 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- MK26-33
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP Evaluation Scoresheet for Solicitation #MK26-33, administered by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and the Department of Health and Human Services to procure a Clinical Quality Improvement Technical Assistance Provider to support the Million Hearts Coalition. The contractor will provide technical assistance to clinics focused on hypertension, diabetes, and tobacco cessation, attend coalition meetings, and co-chair the clinical sub-group as a quality improvement expert. The contract term is five years. The evaluation process includes five mandatory requirements that vendors must satisfy on a pass/fail basis, including: designation of a Chief Medical Officer or Executive Medical Director with an active clinical license and quality improvement experience; a minimum of five years' experience conducting clinical quality improvement with clinics and health care centers; five years' experience providing training and technical assistance to entities implementing quality improvement projects; ability to co-chair and provide technical assistance to the Clinical sub-workgroup; and willingness to submit quarterly and annual reports.
The scoresheet allocates 1,000 total points across four scoreable technical criteria, each weighted equally at 25 percent: vendor resumes for at least three key project staff (250 points); description of experience conducting quality improvement projects with clinics and hospitals (250 points); description of experience providing training and technical assistance to clinics and entities implementing quality improvement (250 points); and ability to facilitate meetings and chair workgroups (250 points). Vendors must achieve a minimum of 70 percent of technical points (700 points) to advance to cost evaluation. Cost points will be awarded using a comparative pricing formula where the lowest-priced proposal receives 100 percent of available cost points, with all other proposals receiving proportional points based on their price relative to the lowest bid. The solicitation does not accept pricing information with initial qualifications submissions; compensation will be determined through negotiation with the highest-ranked vendor.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 4-Attachment C - Mandatory Minimums Technical Requirements.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 6-Attachment B - Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 5-Attachment A - Terms and Conditions.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
| Clinical Quality Improvement | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION #MK26-33 | ||||||||||
| 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 Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||||
| 1 | Vendor must have a designated Chief Medical Officer (CMO) or Executive Medical Director with an active, unrestricted clinical license and demonstrated experience in quality improvement. | |||||||||
| 2 | Vendor must have at least 5 years’ experience in conducting clinical quality improvement (QI) with clinics and health care centers. | |||||||||
| 3 | Vendor must have at least 5 years’ experience providing training, education and ongoing techincal assistance to entities working with clinics to implement QI projects such as local health departments, clinics and Utah DHHS. | |||||||||
| 4 | Vendor must be able to co-chair and provide technical assistance to the Clinical sub-workgroup of the Utah Million Hearts Coalition. | |||||||||
| 5 | Vendor must be willing to submit quarterly reports and an annual report. | |||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Vendor must provide resumes for at least 3 key people who will be working on the project. | 50 | 25.0% | 250.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 2 | Vendor must describe their expereince conducting quality improvement prjoects with clinics, health centers and hospitals. | 50 | 25.0% | 250.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 3 | Vendor must describe their expereience providing training and technical assistance to clinics and other entitties working with clinics to do clinical quality improvement. | 50 | 25.0% | 250.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 4 | Vendor must describe their ability to facilitate meetings and chair workgroups. | 50 | 25.0% | 250.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 100.0% | 1000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 70% | 700.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||||||
| * Purchasing will use the following cost formula: 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. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .