5-26053 Score Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 82 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- DHHS26053
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation #DHHS26053 issued by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Services for People with Disabilities (DSPD). The solicitation seeks to procure peer support services for persons on the DSPD wait list, with services designed to help individuals and their families remain in home and community-based settings while awaiting Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Waivers. The peer support services will be provided by individuals with lived experience in disabilities to identify needs, provide support and guidance, navigate systems, and connect persons and families to available resources.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes nine technical criteria with weighted scoring designed to assess vendor qualifications across multiple dimensions including experience working with individuals with various disabilities, providing information and referrals, delivering training on disability rights and resources, assisting with Social Security and Medicaid benefits navigation, providing mental health system access support, delivering coaching and skills-building services, demonstrating knowledge of HCBS Waivers and DSPD requirements, proving capacity to deliver in-person regional services, and staffing with individuals with disabilities or family caregivers. The scoresheet accommodates evaluation of up to seven offerors with three evaluators per criteria using a 0-5 scoring scale. The total possible technical points are 12,500, with a required minimum threshold of 9,750 points (78% of total points) for proposals to advance in the evaluation process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 8-26053 Form 3 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement.pdf | ||
| 12-26053 DHHS Client Service Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| 11-26053 Form 6 Technical Proposal.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-26053 Document Submission Checklist.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 7-26053 Form 2 W-9.pdf | ||
| 6-26053 Form 1 Data Sheet.pdf | ||
| 9-26053 Form 4 Business Associate Agreement.pdf | ||
| 2-26053 Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-26053 RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-26053 Rate Table.docx | DOCX document | |
| 10-26053 Form 5 Region Selection.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
| PEER SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PERSONS ON THE DSPD WAIT LIST |
| SOLICITATION #DHHS26053 |
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET |
Vendor:
Evaluator: Date:
| 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 vendor demonstrate their experience working with families and individuals with various types of disabilities? | 500 | 20.0% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | 2000.0 | |||
| 2 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience providing Persons and their families with information and referral to resources that can be used by individuals with various types of disabilities living in the community? | 100 | 4.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | 350.0 | |||
| 3 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience developing, coordinating, and providing information and training about disabilities, rights of people with disabilities, and available resources for people with disabilities? | 100 | 4.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | 350.0 | |||
| 4 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience assisting individuals to understand, apply for, and maintain Social Security benefits, Medicaid benefits, Department of Workforce Services benefits, and Vocational Rehabilitation benefits? | 100 | 4.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | 350.0 | |||
| 5 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience assisting individuals to understand and access mental health systems and resources? | 100 | 4.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | 350.0 | |||
| 6 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience coaching and providing skills-building to Persons and their families? | 500 | 20.0% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | 2000.0 | |||
| 7 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their knowledge of HCBS Waivers and DHHS/DSPD requirements for Persons to remain on the DHHS/DSPD wait list for services? | 100 | 4.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | 350.0 | |||
| 8 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their capacity to provide in-person services within the region it applied for? (if the vendor applied for multiple regions, each region will be scored separately) | 500 | 20.0% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | 2000.0 | |||
| 9 | How well did the vendor demostrate that it has staff that includes individuals with disabilities, or caregivers of family members with a disability, to provide peer support? (i.e. are there enough staff to support the region(s) they applied for?) | 500 | 20.0% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | 2000.0 | |||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 12500.0 | 0.0 | 9750.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status |
| 9750.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
Scoresheet Summary DHHS26053 Scoresheet Summary
| Signatures: | Date: |
| Evaluator 1 | __________________ |
| Evaluator 2 | __________________ |
| Evaluator 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| Criteria #8 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #8 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #9 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #9 - 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 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .