4-Attachment D - Scoresheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 39 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MK26-24 Public Health Emergency and Healthcare Preparedness Programs - Training and Exercise Coordination
- Solicitation number
- MK26-24
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
RFSQ Evaluation Scoresheet for Training and Exercise Coordinator
This document is an evaluation scoresheet for Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) Solicitation #MK26-24 issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. The procurement seeks a qualified vendor to provide overall exercise coordination services for the Public Health Emergency and Healthcare Preparedness Programs over a four-year contract term. The selected vendor will work with the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, local health departments, hospitals, healthcare systems, and the Utah Department of Public Safety to develop, execute, and evaluate exercises. No response deadline, due date, site visit requirements, or bidder's conference details are specified in this scoresheet document.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes five mandatory requirements that vendors must satisfy to be considered: residency in Utah, experience in public health emergency and healthcare preparedness, minimum five years of experience following the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) standards, FEMA Master Exercise Practitioner (MEP) certification, and minimum five years coordinating statewide exercises with specified state and local stakeholders. Seven scoreable technical criteria, each weighted at 14.3% of the total technical score and valued at 200 points each, evaluate vendors' experience in emergency preparedness planning, hazard assessments, integrated preparedness planning workshops, after-action reports, audience-tailored communication, and successful project examples. A minimum technical score threshold of 980 points (70% of 1,400 total possible points) is required for proposal approval. No pricing information is permitted in vendor submissions, with contract compensation to be determined through negotiations with the highest-ranked selected vendor.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 3-Attachment A - TCS.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-Attachment C - Mandatory Minimum Technical Rrequirements.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment B - Scope of Work.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
| Training and Exercise Coordinator | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION # MK26-24 | ||||||||||
| RFSQ 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 reside in the state of Utah. | |||||||||
| 2 | Vendor must have experience working in public health emergency and healthcare preparedness. | |||||||||
| 3 | Vendor must have a minimum of 5-years experience following Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) to develop, execute and evaluate exercises. | |||||||||
| 4 | Vendor must be a FEMA Master Exercise Practitioner (MEP). | |||||||||
| 5 | Vendor must have a minimum of 5-years experience coordinating statewide exercises with a variety of players including representatives from the Utah DHHS, local health departments, hospitals and healthcare systems in the state of Utah, and the Utah Department of Public Safety. | |||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Describe experience working in public health and healthcare emergency preparedness as it relates to planning, training, and exercises. | 40 | 14.3% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 2 | Describe your experience in conducting hazard or risk assessments to inform program priorities? | 40 | 14.3% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 3 | Describe the process of how you would conduct an integrated preparedness planning workshop (IPPW)? | 40 | 14.3% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 4 | Describe your experience in drafting an After-Action Report and Improvement Plan (AAR/IP). How do you ensure the improvement plan gets implemented? | 40 | 14.3% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 5 | Describe how you tailor communication based on the audience. How do you engage different professional levels? | 40 | 14.3% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 6 | Describe an example of a successful training or exercise project that you accomplished. What were the outcomes? | 40 | 14.3% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 7 | Describe an example of a successful training or exercise project that you accomplished. What were the outcomes? | 40 | 14.3% | 200.00 | 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% | 1400.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 70% | 980.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .