6-Score Sheet - For information only - AMENDED 9-11-2026.xls
XLS spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BB27-100, Rural Health Transformation Program
- Solicitation number
- BB27-100
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation #BB27-100, the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP), administered by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. The RHTP is a five-year federally funded initiative from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) designed to modernize and strengthen health systems within rural communities. Utah was awarded $195.7 million in federal funding for Year 1, with continued annual funding contingent upon program outcomes and CMS discretion through 2030. The program's framework comprises four strategic pillars—Making Rural Utahns Healthy, Workforce Development, Innovation and Access, and Technology Innovation—operationalized through 24 key activities divided into seven integrated initiatives: PATH, RISE, SHIFT, FAST, LIFT, SUPPORT, and LINCS. These initiatives aim to unite rural stakeholders to transform healthcare delivery across 25 of Utah's 29 counties (excluding Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, and Weber). Implementation will be executed by a network of partners including state agencies, community groups, private sector entities, and academic institutions.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a weighted technical scoring system totaling 1,000 points based on seven primary evaluation criteria: Evaluation Methodology and Framework Design (225 points), Sustainability and Fiscal Stewardship (175 points), Performance Monitoring and Reporting (200 points), Targeted Populations and Tribal Areas (125 points), Data Dissemination and Communication (125 points), Budgeting and Federal Compliance (100 points), and Legal Entity Status and State Vendor Registration (50 points). Proposals must achieve a minimum technical score of 600 points (60 percent) to be eligible for further consideration. Seven mandatory minimum requirements must be satisfied on a pass/fail basis, including RBA Framework Experience, Geographic Scope Restriction, Federal Compliance and Restrictions, Strict Deliverable Timelines, Federal and State Standing, and Legal Entity Status and State Vendor Registration. Cost evaluation will be conducted separately, with the lowest proposed price receiving 100 percent of cost points and all other proposals receiving proportional points based on their price relative to the lowest bid. The program prioritizes non-recurring upgrades and transition operations into self-sustaining, market-driven structures consistent with Utah House Joint Resolution 101 principles regarding federal funds management.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment A - Utah Department of Health and Human Services Terms Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 5-Scope of Work Deliverables.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Attachment C - The Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP) MM TR- AMENDED.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-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
| Rural Health Transformation Program | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION # BB27-100 | ||||||||||
| Part 15 EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||||
| DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft and should not be returned to the Division of Purchasing. Please return this document to the evaluation committee chairperson | ||||||||||
| This document is not subject to GRAMA pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R33-7-702(2). | ||||||||||
| 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 | RBA Framework Experience | |||||||||
| 2 | Geographic Scope Restriction | |||||||||
| 3 | Federal Compliance and Restrictions | |||||||||
| 4 | Strict Deliverable Timelines | |||||||||
| 5 | Federal and State Standing | |||||||||
| 6 | Legal Entity Status and State Vendor Registration: | |||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Evaluation Methodology and Framework Design | 45 | 22.5% | 225.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 2 | Sustainability and Fiscal Stewardship | 35 | 17.5% | 175.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 3 | Performance Monitoring and Reporting | 40 | 20.0% | 200.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 4 | Targeted Populations and Tribal Areas | 25 | 12.5% | 125.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 5 | Data Dissemination and Communication | 25 | 12.5% | 125.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 6 | Budgeting and Federal Compliance | 20 | 10.0% | 100.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| 7 | Legal Entity Status and State Vendor Registration | 10 | 5.0% | 50.00 | 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% | 1000.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 60% | 600.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||||
| * Purchasing will use the following cost formula: 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. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). | Other cost evaluation methods may be used as long as they are within Procurement Code/Rule. Ensure the method for awarding points is clearly stated on the score sheeet and within the solicitation documents. | |||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 0% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .