4-26139 Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 60 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USDC Physical Therapy Services
- Solicitation number
- DHHS26139
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for USDC Physical Therapy Services (Solicitation #DHHS26139) issued by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services for physical therapy services at the Utah State Developmental Center. The scoresheet is designed to evaluate proposals from up to seven offerors and includes both mandatory requirements and technical scoring criteria. Vendors must demonstrate current physical therapy or physical therapy assistant licensure from the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, at least three years of professional experience working with individuals who have developmental and cognitive disabilities with possible behavioral and physical issues, and current registration with the Utah Department of Commerce. The evaluation utilizes a 0-5 scoring scale across six technical criteria worth a combined 1,100 points, with individual criteria focusing on years of experience with intellectual disabilities, general physical therapy experience, experience in non-traditional settings (such as hippotherapy and aquatic therapy), caregiver training capabilities, mobility assistive equipment expertise, and experience with assistive mechanical devices.
The total evaluation is weighted at 90 percent technical merit and 10 percent cost, with a required minimum technical threshold of 60 percent (660 points) to be deemed responsive. Cost points are allocated from a pool of 110 points based on a comparative formula where the lowest-priced proposal receives 100 percent of available cost points, with all other proposals receiving proportional points based on their price variance relative to the lowest bid; proposals exceeding double the lowest price receive no cost points. The scoresheet accommodates evaluation by up to four evaluators whose scores are averaged for each criterion, and the final award determination is based on the combined technical and cost scores, with a total possible score of 1,210 points across all offerors.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 9-26139 Form 5 Technical Proposal.docx | DOCX document | |
| 10-26139 Form 6 Cost Proposal.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-26139 RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-26139 Form 2 W-9.pdf | ||
| 12-DHHS26139 Award Recommendation and Justification Statement.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-26139 Form 3 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement.pdf | ||
| 8-26139 Form 4 Business Associate Agreement.pdf | ||
| 5-26139 Form 1 Data Sheet.pdf | ||
| 3-26139 DHHS Client Service Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| 11-26139 Document Submission Checklist.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-26139 Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 11
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
| USDC Physical Therapy Services | |||||||||
| SOLICITATION #DHHS26139 | |||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||||
| Vendor: | |||||||||
| Evaluator: | Date: | ||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||||
| 1 | Current Physical Therapy license, or a Physical Therapy Assistant license (if a Physical Therapy Assistant will also be providing services) from the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. | ||||||||
| 2 | At least three years of professional experience working with individuals who have developmental and cognitive disabilities and possible behavioral and physical issues. | ||||||||
| 3 | Current registration with the Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. | ||||||||
| 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 | Years of experience in providing physical therapy to individuals with intellectual disabilities - 3 points for 3 years - 4 points for 4-6 years - 5 points for 6 + years | 50 | 22.7% | 250.0 | 0.0 | 150.0 | |||
| 2 | Describe your experience in providing physical therapy services. | 50 | 22.7% | 250.0 | 0.0 | 150.0 | |||
| 3 | Describe your experience in providing services outside of a traditional clinic setting (i.e., hippotherapy (horse riding), aquatic pool therapy, adaptive mobility therapy, etc.). | 30 | 13.6% | 150.0 | 0.0 | 90.0 | |||
| 4 | Describe your experience in providing comprehensive training to caregivers (not patients) as it relates to physical therapy. | 30 | 13.6% | 150.0 | 0.0 | 90.0 | |||
| 5 | Describe your experience with mobility assistive equipment (wheelchairs), as it relates to fit, safety positioning and adjustments for long term users. | 30 | 13.6% | 150.0 | 0.0 | 90.0 | |||
| 6 | Describe your use of assistive mechanical devices in a clinical PT setting, such as walkers, tilt tables and others; and describe outcomes in gross motor skills, gait training, range of motion and positioning. | 30 | 13.6% | 150.0 | 0.0 | 90.0 | |||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 1100.0 | 0.0 | 660.0 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status | ||||
| 60% | 660.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||||
| Cost | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 10% | 110.0 | 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 | 90% | 1,100.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 10% | 110.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,210.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| DHHS26139 Scoresheet Summary | ||||||||
| Signatures: | Date: | |||||||
| Evaluator 1 | __________________ | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | __________________ | |||||||
| Evaluator 3 | __________________ | |||||||
| Evaluator 4 | __________________ | |||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 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 .