The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
USHE Consolidated Health & Welfare Benefits | Evaluation Scoresheet Utah System of Higher Education Request for Statement of Qualifications Broker and Consulting Services for a Consolidated Health and Welfare Benefits Program Attachment C: Evaluation Scoresheet Solicitation Number: 07072026 Issued: 7/7/2026
1. Purpose and Use This scoresheet supports the evaluation of Statements of Qualifications submitted in response to the USHE Request for Statement of Qualifications for Broker and Consulting Services for a Consolidated Health and Welfare Benefits Program. The scoresheet is structured to align with the questions in Attachment B - Questions for Potential Vendors, and to support the evaluation process described in Section 7 of Attachment A – RFQ Information & Scope of Work.
The evaluation committee shall consist of at least three individuals designated by the Board. Each committee member shall independently score each responsive proposal using this scoresheet. Individual scores will be aggregated to produce a composite score for each respondent. The three highest-scoring respondents will be ranked for the purposes of fee negotiation under Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 6a, Part 15.
Consistent with the Part 15 process, no fee, cost, or pricing information will be evaluated as part of the qualifications scoring.
2. Scoring Scale Evaluators shall use the following five-point scale when scoring each evaluation criterion. The raw score for each criterion shall be multiplied by the assigned weight to produce the weighted score. Vendors should note that some responses may result in disqualification from consideration irrespective of the overall score of the submission (i.e. excessive conflicts, unable to contract in the state of Utah, inability to meet HIPPA requirements, etc.).
| 5 |
| Excellent |
| Response significantly exceeds expectations. Provides comprehensive, specific, and well-supported information that demonstrates strong capability and relevant experience. Identifies and addresses risks, edge cases, and opportunities beyond the minimum requirements. |
| 4 |
| Above Average |
| Response exceeds expectations. Provides clear, specific, and well-supported information that demonstrates capability and relevant experience. Minor gaps or missed opportunities for further detail. |
| 3 |
| Meets Expectations |
| Response meets expectations. Provides adequate information that demonstrates capability and experience sufficient to perform the work. Some areas could be more specific or better supported. |
| 2 |
| Below Expectations |
| Response is partially responsive but contains material gaps, lacks specificity, or raises concerns about the firm’s capability or experience for this engagement. |
| 1 |
| Poor |
| Response is minimally responsive. Significant gaps, lack of relevant experience, or material concerns about the firm’s ability to perform the work. |
| 0 |
| Non-Responsive |
| Response does not address the criterion or fails to provide the requested information. |
3. Evaluation Criteria and Weights The fourteen questions in Attachment B are grouped into the seven evaluation criteria below for scoring purposes. Each criterion is assigned a weight that reflects its relative importance to the engagement. Weights total 100.
| # |
| Evaluation Criterion |
| Questions Covered (Attachment B) |
| Weight |
| A |
| Eligibility, Demonstrated Comparable Experience & References |
| Q1.a (Firm Overview & Authority to Contract); Q1.b (Work History & Comparable Engagements); Q1.c (References). |
| 20 |
| B |
| Approach to Strategic Design and Disaggregated Analysis |
| Q2 (Strategic Design & Disaggregated Analysis) |
| 20 |
| C |
| Approach to Downstream Procurement, Implementation, Ongoing Support, Capacity &Timeline |
| Q3.a (Downstream Vendor Procurement); Q3.b (Implementation & Member Transition); Q3.c (Ongoing Account Management); Q3.d (Scope, Timeline, & Resource Commitment) |
| 20 |
| D |
| Key Personnel and Team Composition |
| Q4 (Key Personnel and Team Composition) |
| 15 |
| E |
| Compensation Transparency and Conflicts of Interest |
| Q5 (Compensation Transparency and Conflicts of Interest) |
| 10 |
| F |
| Troubleshooting, Communication, and Coordination |
| Q6.a (Troubleshooting, Communication, & Issue Escalation); Q6.b (Coordination with Board-Retained Advisors) |
| 10 |
| G |
| Firm Capability, Data Management, & Work Product |
| Q7.a (Data Management, Security, and Privacy); Q7.b (Sample Work Product) |
| 5 |
Total
Maximum possible weighted score per respondent: 500 points (raw score of 5 across all weighted criteria). Scores will be computed as (raw score) × (weight) for each criterion, then summed for each respondent. Each evaluator’s composite scores will be averaged to determine ranking.