7-Attachment E Scoresheet Final.xls
XLS spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- JK26-40
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and the Department of Commerce for an electronic health (eHealth) compliance monitoring, tracking, and toxicology testing platform to serve probationers and participants. The solicitation number is JK26-40, and the contract is anticipated to be a single award to the responsive and responsible vendor with the highest evaluation score. The contract term is five years, with vendors required to guarantee pricing for a minimum of one year.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a 1,000-point total scoring structure comprised of 80 percent technical criteria (800 points) and 20 percent cost evaluation (200 points). Four mandatory prerequisite requirements must be met for proposal qualification, including certification that significant solution portions have been in continuous use by at least five professional health monitoring clients for three years, minimum two years of continuous operation in multi-matrix biological testing program development and administration, financial capacity to obtain a required performance bond, and capability to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication. The technical evaluation includes five scoreable criteria weighted as follows: Technical Merit and Scope of Work ability (250 points), Service Capability and customer service processes (150 points), Performance References for similar projects including monitoring and toxicology testing (150 points), Multi-Factor Authentication and Integration (150 points), and organizational structure documentation (100 points). A minimum of 560 technical points (70 percent threshold) is required for advancement. Cost points are awarded using a comparative formula whereby the lowest proposed price receives 100 percent of available cost points, with other proposals receiving proportional points based on their price differential relative to the lowest bid.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Att.-B-Agency-IT-Terms-and-Conditions (7).docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS (28).docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 5-Attachment C Scope of Work Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Attachment D Cost Proposal Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf |
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
| ONLINE COMPLIANCE TRACKING FOR PROBATIONERS AND PARTICIPANTS | ||||||||||
| SOLICITATION # JK26-40 | ||||||||||
| RFP 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 | Offeror certifies that they have and will submit documentation showing that all significant portions of the Vendor’s proposed solution have been in continuous and meaningful use by at least 5 professional health monitoring clients for at least 3 years. | Prereq | ||||||||
| 2 | Offeror certifies that they have and will submit documentation showing they have a minimum of two years in continuous operation in the development, administration, and laboratory logistics management of multi-matrix biological testing programs (including urine and non-urine matrices). | Prereq | ||||||||
| 3 | Offeror Certifies that they have the ability and the financial wherewithal to obtain the performance bond as required by Attachment C: Scope of Work, Section 1, Task 01-02 and can provide documentation upon request. | Prereq | ||||||||
| 4 | Offeror certifies that their solution is able to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication. | Prereq | ||||||||
| 5 | Prereq | |||||||||
| 6 | Prereq | |||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Please describe your companies Technical Merit and ability to meet the Scope of Work. | Prereq | 50 | 31.3% | 250.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 2 | Please describe your Service Capability. Explain your customer service process and offerings. | Prereq | 30 | 18.8% | 150.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 3 | Please submit 3-5 Performance References for Similar Projects including monitoring and toxicology testing. | Prereq | 30 | 18.8% | 150.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 4 | Please describe your Multi-Factor Authentication and Integration. | Prereq | 30 | 18.8% | 150.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 5 | Please provide a description of your organizational structure delineated by position and number of employees. | Prereq | 20 | 12.5% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 6 | Prereq | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 7 | Prereq | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 8 | Prereq | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| 9 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 10 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 11 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 12 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 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% | 800.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| Prereq | 70% | 560.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | |||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| Prereq | 20% | 200.0 | 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 | 80% | 800.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 20% | 200.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .