5-26089 Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 80 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- DHHS26089
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation #DHHS26089, issued by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Services for People with Disabilities (DHHS/DSPD), for Employment Training Curriculum and Mentoring Training services. The requested services include developing and delivering quality training to improve the delivery and effectiveness of Competitive Integrated Employment supports and Customized Employment Supports for persons with disabilities, their families, providers, and the employment community. The contract also requires peer-to-peer consultation and technical assistance to agencies, staff, legal guardians, and families supporting persons in obtaining, maintaining, or advancing in Competitive Integrated Employment and improved community integration during day support and residential services.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes 10 mandatory minimum requirements that vendors must satisfy on a pass/fail basis, including three years of experience in developing employment curriculum, five years of experience with policy implementation and provider operations development, ACRE certification, and familiarity with specific tools such as Charting the Life Course and the DHHS/DSPD Employment Pathway Tool. The scoring methodology includes 15 technical evaluation criteria weighted by importance, with a maximum of 24,500 technical points possible. Criteria are scored on a 0-5 scale, with scores ranging from "poor" to "excellent." Cost evaluation points are calculated using a comparative pricing formula where the lowest proposal receives 100 percent of available cost points, and proposals more than double the lowest price receive no cost points. The scoresheet accommodates evaluation by up to four evaluators per criterion, with final scores averaged across all evaluators.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 12-26089 Form 7 Attestation Statement.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-26089 RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-26089 Form 2 W-9.pdf | ||
| 4-26089 Document Submission Checklist.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 6-26089 Form 1 Data Sheet.pdf | ||
| 2-26089 Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-26089 DHHS Client Service Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| 9-26089 Form 4 Business Associate Agreement.pdf | ||
| 11-26089 Form 6 Cost Proposal.docx | DOCX document | |
| 8-26089 Form 3 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement.pdf | ||
| 10-26089 Form 5 Technical Proposal.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
| Employment Training Curriculum and Mentoring Training | |||
| SOLICITATION #DHHS26089 | |||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||
| Vendor: | |||
| Evaluator: | Date: | ||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||
| 1 | Does the vendor have at least three years of experience in developing and delivering curriculum and training in obtaining Competitive Integrated Employment for Persons, and in implementing evidence-based practices aligned with federal and state policies in home and community-based settings through demonstrated competencies in: |
(A) Day Support Program service transformation towards increasing opportunities for Community Integration and Competitive Integrated Employment;
(B) Job Coach training;
(C) best practices for promoting success for Persons in Competitive Integrated Employment;
(D) best practices for integrating Persons in the workplace;
(E) assistive technology and adaptive equipment resources; and
(F) Persons and their families and Providers as learning audiences?
| 2 | Does the vendor have at least five years of experience with policy implementation supporting increased community integration and employment for Persons? | ||||||||
| 3 | Does the vendor have at least five years of experience in developing Provider operations that serve people with disabilities? | ||||||||
| 4 | Does the vendor have at least one year of experience in providing trainings for large audiences utilizing in-person and virtual platforms? | ||||||||
| 5 | Does the vendor have at least one year of experience facilitating both in-person and virtual Mentoring sessions? | ||||||||
| 6 | Does the vendor have ACRE certification and at least three years of experience using ACRE certified skills in a professional setting, or have a Staff with ACRE certification and at least three years of experience using ACRE certified skills in a professional setting? | ||||||||
| 7 | Does the vendor have at least one year of experience using Person-centered planning tools and incorporating these tools into training and technical assistance? | ||||||||
| 8 | Does the vendor have at least five years of experience working directly with Persons and their families receiving employment support services? | ||||||||
| 9 | Does the vendor have at least one year of experience developing online training modules and digital learning content? | ||||||||
| 10 | Does the vendor have familiarity with the Charting the Life Course (CtLC) tools and the DHHS/DSPD Employment Pathway Tool as found on the DHHS/DSPD website, and with incorporating it into training, and can provide technical assistance on its implementation as needed? | ||||||||
| 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 vendor demonstrate their experience in developing and delivering curriculum and training in obtaining Competitive Integrated Employment for Persons, and in implementing evidence-based practices aligned with federal and state policies in home and community-based settings, in day support program service transformation towards increasing opportunities/promoting success for Community Integration and Competitive Integrated Employment? Did they include an example of job coach training. | 500 | 10.2% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 2 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience in developing and delivering curriculum and training in obtaining Competetive Integrated Employment for Persons, and in implementing evidence-based practices aligned with federal and state policies in home and community-based settings, in best practices for integrating Persons in the workplace? | 300 | 6.1% | 1500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 3 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience in developing and delivering curriculum and training in obtaining Competitive Integrated Employment for Persons, and in implementing evidence-based practices aligned with federal and state policies in home and community-based settings, in assistitive technology and adaptive equipment resources? | 100 | 2.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 4 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience in developing and delivering curriculum and training in obtaining Competitive Integrated Employment for Persons, and in implementing evidence-based practices aligned with federal and state policies in home and community-based settings, with Persons and their families and Providers as learning audiences? | 300 | 6.1% | 1500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 5 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience with Provider policy implementation supporting increased community integration and employment for Persons? | 500 | 10.2% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 6 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience in developing Provider operations that serve people with disabilities? | 500 | 10.2% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 7 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience or their Staff's experience in using ACRE certified skills in a professional setting? | 100 | 2.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 8 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience using Person-centered planning tools and incorporating these tools into training and technical assistance? | 100 | 2.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 9 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience working directly with Persons and their families receiving employment support services? | 300 | 6.1% | 1500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 10 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their ability to provide in-person support services statewide? | 100 | 2.0% | 500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 11 | How well did the vendor provide examples of being successful in improving access for Competitive Integrated Employment across a service system? | 500 | 10.2% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 12 | How well did the vendor provide examples of their ability and success in incorporating exposure to employment opportunities during Day Supports and other Waiver services, and transitioning Persons into employment? | 500 | 10.2% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 13 | How well did the vendor demonstrate their experience collaborating with partners in service systems and mitigating barriers, including how to utilize partnerships to address gaps in services? | 300 | 6.1% | 1500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 14 | How well did the vendor provide examples of times when mentoring practices were not meeting desired outcomes, and what strategies were implemented to improve outcomes? | 300 | 6.1% | 1500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 15 | How well did the vendor explain their plan to complete the curriculum within three months? | 500 | 10.2% | 2500.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 24500.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status | ||||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||||||
| Cost | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 0.0 | 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 | 0% | 24,500.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 24,500.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| DHHS26089 Employment Mentoring Curriculum and Mentoring Training 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 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 | |
| Criteria #10 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #10 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #11 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #11 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #12 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #12 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #13 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #13 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #14 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #14 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #15 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | 5.0 | |||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #15 - 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 | |
| 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 .