3-DHHS26087 Score Sheet 26CR62.xls
XLS spreadsheet 60 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Housing Stability
- Solicitation number
- DHHS26087
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for the Housing and Stabilization Program (DHHS26087) issued by the Utah Department of Human Services. The program seeks to provide safe housing and wraparound services for individuals and families leaving polygamous communities in Utah by increasing the availability of housing units and expanding access to supportive services and supports.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes two mandatory requirements that offerors must satisfy: documentation that the primary client focus is individuals and families within Utah leaving polygamous communities, and documentation of at least three years of direct service experience providing services to this target population. The technical evaluation comprises five scoreable criteria weighted toward demonstrating the need for supportive housing, describing plans to expand housing capacity by adding six new apartments and 17 additional beds by June 30, 2027, outlining wraparound services including case management, mental health counseling, peer support, and educational support, explaining sustainability of services beyond contract termination, and providing detailed budget justification with emphasis on $250,000 that must be expended by June 30, 2026. Evaluators score each criterion on a zero to five-point scale, with a minimum required technical point threshold of 60 percent (36 of 60 possible points). The scoresheet accommodates evaluation by up to five evaluators across seven potential offerors, with provisions for calculating average scores and tracking total evaluation points for ranking and award determination.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Form 2b Conflict of Interest Certification UGE.pdf | ||
| 1-Form 1 IRS Form W-9.pdf | ||
| 4-DHHS26087 RFP Budget Utilization Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5-DHHS26087 RFP Instructions and Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| 9-DHHS Client Service Terms (7).docx | DOCX document | |
| 8-DHHS26087 Stability SOW.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Form 2a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement.pdf | ||
| 6-DHHS26087 Housing Stability 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
| Housing and Stabilization Program | |||||||||
| SOLICITATION # DHHS26087 | |||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||||
| Vendor: | |||||||||
| Evaluator: | Date: | ||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||||
| 1 | Did the Offeror submit documentation establishing its primary client focus are individuals and families within Utah leaving polygamous communities? | ||||||||
| 2 | Did the Offeror submit documentation demonstrating at least 3 years experience providing direct services to individuals and families leaving polygamous communities? | ||||||||
| 0 | |||||||||
| 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 provide a statement of need for the proposed project that demonstrates the need for supportive housing for individuals and families leaving polygamous communities in their community (SOW 2.1)? | 3 | 25.0% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 2 | How well did the offeror describe how their agency plans to expand their housing capacity with six new apartments and 17 additional beds by June 30, 2027 (SOW 3.1(1))? | 3 | 25.0% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 3 | How well did the offeror describe how their agency plans to ensure individuals receiving housing support have access to wrap around services, including: case management, mental health counseling, peer support services, and educational support services (SOW 3.1(3))? | 3 | 25.0% | 15.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 4 | How well did the offeror describe how the agency plans to continue providing housing and stabilization services to the target population after the end of the contract (SOW 3.2(1))? | 1 | 8.3% | 5.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 5 | How well did the offeror describe their budget justification narrative with particular emphasis on the $250,000 that must be spent by June 30, 2026? | 2 | 16.7% | 10.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 60.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status | ||||
| 60% | 36.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 0% | 60.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 60.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| DHHS26087 Housing and Stabilization 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 establishing its primary client focus are individuals and families within Utah leaving polygamous communities? | |||||||
| 2 | Did the Offeror submit documentation demonstrating at least 3 years experience providing direct services to individuals and families leaving polygamous communities? | |||||||
| Weight | Technical Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G |
| Criteria #1: Statement of 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 | |
| 3.0 | Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #2: Plans to Expand Housing Capacity | ||||||||
| 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 #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #3: Wrap Around Services Plans | ||||||||
| 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 = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #4: Plans to continue providing housing and wrap around services after the end of the contract | ||||||||
| 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 #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #5: Budget justification narrative | ||||||||
| 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 #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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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 .