7-TB2640-PBM - Attachment D - Evaluation Scoresheet.pdf
PDF 116 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- TB2640-PBM
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City, Utah
About this file
This is an Evaluation Scoresheet document for the Salt Lake City School District's Request for Proposal to procure Pharmacy Benefit Management (PBM) services. The District seeks qualified vendors to provide comprehensive PBM services and will evaluate technical proposals submitted through the Bonfire/U3P system, while price proposals will be submitted separately through the RingmasterRx system. All vendors must contact Tyler Barnes, SLCSD Director of Purchasing, at Tyler.Barnes@slcschools.org to request access to the RingmasterRx system before submitting proposals. The solicitation requires vendors to follow specific formatting and submission requirements outlined in the RFP documentation, with all questions regarding the procurement directed through the official Bonfire system. Evaluation of received proposals will proceed according to the criteria defined within the evaluation scoresheet, and only modifications issued as authorized addenda by the SLCSD Purchasing Department constitute official position changes.
Responses submitted through Bonfire remain secure until after the solicitation deadline, allowing vendors to submit proposals at any time prior to closure without time pressure. The District emphasizes that vendors assume full risk if relying on information from sources other than official addenda, including potential rejection as non-responsive at the sole discretion of SLCSD. Price proposals are handled separately through RingmasterRx to maintain security and competitive integrity throughout the evaluation process.
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 will be assigned as follows:
RFP
Section
Evaluation (Pass/Fail)
1 2.2
RFP
Section
Evaluator Score (0-10)
Criteria Weight
% of Tech Criteria
Points Possible
Points Earned
1 2.3 14 20% 140 0 2 2.3 14 20% 140 0 3 2.3 10.5 15% 105 0 4 2.3 7 10% 70 0 5 2.3 10.5 15% 105 0 6 2.3 7 10% 70 0 7 2.3 7 10% 70 0
100.0% 700 0
RFP
Section Min Percent
Min Points Required
Points Earned
Percent Earned
Evaluation
4.2 75% 525 0 0%
RFP
Section
Evaluator Score (0-10)
Criteria Weight
% of Price Points
Points Possible
Points Earned
1 4.3 10.5 35% 105 0 2 4.3 12 40% 120 0 3 4.3 4.5 15% 45 0 4 4.3 3 10% 30 0
100% 300 0
Percent of Total
Points Possible
Points Earned
70% 700 0 30% 300 0
100% 1,000 0
Network Distribution
Discount Guarantees In Conjunction With Technical Proposal
Claims Re-Pricing In Conjunction With Technical Proposal Overall Value Of Proposal
Rebate Guarantees In Conjunction With Technical Proposal
Clinical Support & Exception Management Implementation, Change Management & Ongoing Disruption Mitigation
Account Management & Employer Support Member (Employee) Customer Service Experience Urgent Prescription Access & Time-Sensitive Support Claims Resolution & Appeals Escalation
Required Technical Point Threshold
Total Evaluation Points Total Price Evaluation Points Total Technical Evaluation Points
Total Evaluation Points
Price
PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGER SERVICES FOR SLC SCHOOL DISTRICT
RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Vendor Name:
Evaluator:
Date:
SOLICITATION # TB2640-PBM
DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft and should not be returned to the Purchasing Department. 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).
7.5 = Pass, the proposal addresses all requirements with sufficient support and detail for each requirement.
8 = Good, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with ample support and detail for each requirement.
9 = Great, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with abundant support and detail for each requirement.
Scoreable Technical Criteria
Submission Of Attachment C – Minimum Mandatory Requirements Checklist
0 = Fail, the proposal does not answer or address the requirement 1-4 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal has major gaps in addressing some or all of the requirements of the RFP or has serious deficiencies in support or detail for multiple requirements.
5-7 = Substandard, the proposal does not address all of the requirements or criteria in the RFP or does not provide sufficient support or detail to address all of them.
Minimum Mandatory Requirements
10 = Excellent, the proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements, with exceptional support and detail for each requirement.
NOTE: the evaluation committee may also utilize half points (i.e. 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc) where it deems appropriate
Score Sheet
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .