6-Attach-D Score-sheet MW26-14 .xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MW26-14 Utah Peer Support Conference
- Solicitation number
- MW26-14
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This file is an evaluation scoresheet for solicitation MW26-14 issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and conducted by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for the planning, coordination, and hosting of peer-run conferences for peer support specialists and family peer support specialists. The contract term is five (5) years. The scoresheet establishes both mandatory minimum requirements and scoreable technical criteria that vendors must meet to be considered for award. Mandatory requirements include at least two years of experience as a business engaged with the mental health or substance use recovery community including peer recovery support specialists, and at least two years of experience providing education or trainings to adults. The eight scoreable technical criteria assess vendor experience in planning and hosting conferences for at least 250 professionals (44 points), creating and administering post-event evaluation surveys (12 points), creating pre-event marketing materials (12 points), tracking and maintaining data (12 points), providing staff and volunteers for professional events (30 points), establishing and coordinating planning committees (30 points), ensuring breakout sessions meet minimum content requirements (30 points), and complying with federal funding requirements while maintaining budgetary stewardship (30 points). A total of 1,000 points is possible, and vendors must achieve a minimum of 600 points (60 percent) to advance.
The contract is funded through DHHS' Mental Health Block Grant with a total budget of $150,000.00 over the five-year term, equating to $30,000 per year. The awarded vendor may conduct limited fundraising with DHHS permission to cover conference expenses not eligible for reimbursement under the Mental Health Block Grant. The state reserves the right to change funding sources during the contract term and may identify new funding sources to expand the program; any increases above the initial $150,000.00 require approval from the State of Utah's Chief Procurement Officer and a contract amendment. The highest-ranking vendor will be selected to negotiate a contract at compensation determined to be fair and reasonable; if negotiations with the top-ranked vendor are unsuccessful, the state may proceed with negotiations with the next highest-ranked vendor.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 4-Attach-B SOW Utah-Peer-Conference final.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 5-Attach-C Questions-for-potential-vendors MW26-14 .doc | DOC document | |
| 3-Attach-A DHHS-Terms-and-Conditions MW26-14.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
| ATTACHMENT D - EVALUATION SCORESHEET |
| Utah Peer Support Conference |
| REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS |
| Solicitation # MW26-14 |
Vendor:
Evaluator: Date:
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| Vendor and its staff members, collectively as a team, must possess the following qualifications… | ||
| 1 | The vendor must have at least two years' experience as a business currently engaged with the mental health or substance use recovery community including peer recovery support specialists. | |
| 2 | The vendor must have at least two years' experience providing education or trainings to adults. |
| Score will be assigned as follows: |
| 0 = Fail, the statement of qualification(s) fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFSQ or cannot be assessed due to missing information; |
| 1 = Poor, the statement of qualification(s) inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFSQ or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information; |
| 2 = Unsatisfactory, the statement of qualification(s) addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFSQ in an unsatisfactory manner; |
| 3 = Satisfactory, the statement of qualification(s) addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFSQ in a minimum satisfactory manner; |
| 4 = Good, the statement of qualification(s) addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFSQ and in some respects exceeds them; |
| 5 = Excellent, the statement of qualification(s) addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFSQ. |
Scoreable Technical Criteria Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned
| 1 | Experience planning and hosting a conference for at least 250 professionals | ||||||||
| (see attachment C question 4 for more detail) | 44 | 22.0% | 220.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 2 | Experience creating and administering post-event evaluation surveys | ||||||||
| (see attachment C question 5 for more detail) | 12 | 6.0% | 60.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 3 | Experience creating pre-event marketing such as the flyers and event logo | ||||||||
| (see attachment C question 6 for more detail) | 12 | 6.0% | 60.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 4 | Experience tracking and maintaining data | ||||||||
| (see attachment C question 7 for more detail) | 12 | 6.0% | 60.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 5 | Experience providing staff and volunteers for a professional event of this size | ||||||||
| (see attachment C question 8 for more detail) | 30 | 15.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 6 | Experience establishing and coordinating a planning committee for a professional event of this size | ||||||||
| (see attachment C question 9 for more detail) | 30 | 15.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 7 | Experience ensuring event breakout sessions contain the minimum required content | ||||||||
| (see attachment C question 10 for more detail) | 30 | 15.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 8 | Experience complying with Federal funding requirements, ensuring a professional event of this size stays within budget, and ensuring your company is a good steward of event funds | ||||||||
| (see attachment C question 11 for more detail) | 30 | 15.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 1000.0 | 0.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status |
| 60% | 600.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .