8-DHHS25038 Attachment F Score Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Audiology Services
- Solicitation number
- DHHS25038
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for Solicitation DHHS25038, issued by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for audiology services at Utah State Correctional Facility (USCF) and Central Utah Correctional Facility (CUCF). The solicitation seeks an all-inclusive audiology services provider to deliver on-site hearing evaluations, fitting and maintenance of hearing aids, and minor repairs for inmates at both facilities. The scoresheet is designed to evaluate multiple offerors (up to seven) and includes three mandatory pass/fail requirements: providing a certified audiologist, delivering on-site hearing evaluations and hearing aid services, and interpreting and providing patient testing results for review.
The evaluation framework allocates 70% weight to technical criteria worth a maximum of 1,000 points and 30% weight to cost evaluation worth a maximum of 429 points, for a combined total of 1,429 possible points. Technical scoring is divided into four criteria: qualifications and experience (200 points), staff training and correctional facility experience (150 points), certified audiologist oversight capabilities (275 points), and scope of work fulfillment including service frequency and response times (375 points). A minimum technical score of 600 points (60% of technical points) is required to pass. Cost points are calculated using a formula where the lowest-priced proposal receives full points, and other proposals receive points based on how much higher their price is compared to the lowest bid, with proposals exceeding double the lowest cost receiving no cost points. The scoresheet contains signature lines for five evaluators and summary sections for tabulating scores across all offerors.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1-DHHS25038 Attachment A DHHS Client Service Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| 10-DHHS25038 Attachment E Technical Response.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-DHHS25038 Attachment C (a) Conflict of Interest Form.pdf | ||
| 4-DHHS25038 Attachment C (b) Conflict of Interest Certification UGE.pdf | ||
| 3-DHHS25038 Attachment D W9.pdf | ||
| 7-DHHS25038 Request for Proposal.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-DHHS25038 Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-DHHS25038 Attachment H Submission Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| 9-DHHS25038 Attachment G Cost Proposal Sheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 11-DHHS25038 Attachment I CHS Addendum.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
| TITLE: Audiology Service |
| SOLICITATION # DHHS25038 |
| ATTACHMENT F: RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET |
Vendor:
Evaluator: Date:
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | |
| 1 | The Offeror will provide certified Audiologist to administer audiology services. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring the licensing and qualifications of staff. | |
| 2 | The Offeror will provide on-site hearing evaluations, fitting and maintenance of hearing aids, and minor repairs. | |
| 3 | The Offeror will interpret and provide patient testing results for review. |
| Score will be assigned as follows: | ` | ||||||||
| 0 = The proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information. | |||||||||
| 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 in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner. | |||||||||
| 3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all of the 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. | |||||||||
| 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP. | |||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | ||||||||
| 1 | Describe the Offeror’s qualifications, skills, experience, training, and management procedures to successfully administer the audiology services. | 40 | 20.0% | 200.0 | 0.0 | 120.0 | |||
| 2 | Describe how staff are trained in administering audiology services and have experience in providing services in a correctional facility. Describe training that staff have received within the last three years. Provide licensure/qualifications of the staff. | 30 | 15.0% | 150.0 | 0.0 | 90.0 | |||
| 3 | Describe Offeror’s capabilities on providing a certified Audiologist to oversee audiology services and comply with the licensure and qualification requirements of the staff. | 55 | 27.5% | 275.0 | 0.0 | 165.0 | |||
| 4 | Describe Offeror’s plan to fulfill the scope of work, including the available frequency of on-site hearing evaluations, fitting and maintenance of hearing aids, and minor repairs. Describe how quickly the Offeror can respond to requests for on-site audiology services. Describe how quickly the Offeror will interpret and submit patient results, interpreted by a qualified individual, to DHHS. | 75 | 37.5% | 375.0 | 0.0 | 225.0 | |||
| Totals: | 100.0% | 1000.0 | 0.0 | 600.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status |
| 60% | 600 | 0.0 | 0.0% | Fail |
| Cost | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |
| 30% | 428.6 | 0.0 | ||||
| * The following cost formula will be used: 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. An offeror whose Proposed Price is more than double (200%) the Lowest Proposed Price will receive no points. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (2- Proposed Price/Lowest Proposed Price). | ||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 70% | 1000 | 0.0 | |||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 30% | 429 | 0.0 | |||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1429 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary XX##### Solicitation Name Scoresheet Summary
| Signatures: | Date: |
| Evaluator 1 | __________________ |
| Evaluator 2 | __________________ |
| Evaluator 3 | __________________ |
| Evaluator 4 | __________________ |
| Evaluator 5 | __________________ |
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | |
| 1 | ||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||
| 3 |
| Weight | Technical Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G |
| Criteria #1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #5 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #5 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #6 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #6 - Total Points (Total Possible XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #7 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 1 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 2 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 3 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 4 | ||||||||
| Evaluator 5 | ||||||||
| Total Average Score | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Criteria #7 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = XX) Minimum Threshold = XX | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total Cost Points | Cost Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G |
| Cost | ||||||||
| Cost Points | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Score Summary | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G | |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total Cost Points (Total Possible = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Grand Total Points (Total Possible = XX) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .