7-Attachment E Scoresheet Final.xls

XLS spreadsheet 44 KB Posted

Attached to
Online Compliance Tracking For Probationers and Participants
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

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 RequirementsRFP SectionEvaluation (Pass/Fail)
1Offeror 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
2Offeror 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
3Offeror 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
4Offeror certifies that their solution is able to utilize Multi-Factor Authentication.Prereq
5Prereq
6Prereq
0
Scoreable Technical CriteriaRFP SectionEvaluator Score (0-5)Criteria Weight% of Tech CriteriaPoints PossiblePoints
EarnedMinimum Required
1Please describe your companies Technical Merit and ability to meet the Scope of Work.Prereq5031.3%250.000.00
2Please describe your Service Capability. Explain your customer service process and offerings.Prereq3018.8%150.000.00
3Please submit 3-5 Performance References for Similar Projects including monitoring and toxicology testing.Prereq3018.8%150.000.00
4Please describe your Multi-Factor Authentication and Integration.Prereq3018.8%150.000.00
5Please provide a description of your organizational structure delineated by position and number of employees.Prereq2012.5%100.000.00
6Prereq0.0%0.000.00
7Prereq0.0%0.000.00
8Prereq0.0%0.000.00
90.0%0.000.00
100.0%0.000.00
110.0%0.000.00
120.0%0.000.00
130.0%0.000.00
140.0%0.000.00
150.0%0.000.00
160.0%0.000.00
170.0%0.000.00
180.0%0.000.00
190.0%0.000.00
200.0%0.000.00
210.0%0.000.00
220.0%0.000.00
230.0%0.000.00
100.0%800.000.000.00
Required Technical Point ThresholdRFP SectionMin PercentMin Points RequiredPoints EarnedPercent EarnedEvaluation
Prereq70%560.00.00.0%0
CostRFP SectionLow Cost OptionOffered CostPercent of TotalPoints PossiblePoints Earned
Prereq20%200.00.0
* 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 PointsPercent of TotalPoints PossiblePoints Earned
Total Technical Evaluation Points80%800.00.0
Total Cost Evaluation Points20%200.00.0
Total Evaluation Points100%1,000.00.0

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .