8-DHHS91286 Score Sheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 61 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Outreach and Healthcare Access SUD
- Solicitation number
- DHHS91286
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This document is an evaluation scoresheet for Request for Proposal (RFP) DHHS91286 issued by the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for Outreach and Healthcare Access for Substance Use Disorders. The solicitation seeks a vendor to identify and assist individuals with opioid and stimulant use disorders who are eligible for public health plans, with a focus on providing outreach, education, and enrollment assistance. The scoresheet outlines nine primary evaluation criteria, including public education, community partner coordination, outreach to unhoused and criminal justice populations, service delivery infrastructure, geographical coverage, enrollment assistance, train-the-trainer curriculum development, population reach, and budget utilization.
The scoring methodology uses a 0-5 point scale, with weights assigned to each technical criteria totaling 455 possible points and a minimum technical point threshold of 273 points (60%). The target populations include adults aged 18 and older and youth aged 12-17 who are at risk of or currently have substance use disorders and lack Medicaid or other insurance coverage. The contract aims to provide comprehensive enrollment navigation services, including follow-up support, premium verification, and primary care physician appointment scheduling, with a specific geographic focus on Box Elder, Cache, and Weber Counties in Utah.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Form 3 DHHS91286 Budget Utilization Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 1-Form 1 IRS Form W-9.pdf | ||
| 6-DHHS Client Service Terms.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Form 2b Conflict of Interest Certification UGE.pdf | ||
| 3-Form 2a DHHS91286 Conflicts of Interest Dislosure Statement.pdf | ||
| 7-DHHS91286 Outeach and Healthcare Access SUD RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| 9-RFP Instructions and Checklist 25CR162.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-DHHS91286 Att B SOW UHPP 25CR162.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
| Outreach and Healthcare Access for Substance Use Disorders | |||||||
| SOLICITATION # DHHS91286 | |||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | |||||||
| Vendor: | |||||||
| Evaluator: | Date: | ||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||
| 1 | Have and maintain registration with the State of Utah, Department of Commerce, Division of Commerce and Commercial Code. | ||||||
| 2 | Have a minimum of three years of experience assisting consumers with Medicaid enrollment. | ||||||
| 3 | Have a minimum of two years of experience working with substance use treatment agencies, substance use community organizations, and carceral facilities to provide outreach and enrollment assistance to individuals with, or who are at risk of developing, opioid or stimulant use disorders. | ||||||
| 0 | |||||||
| 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
| 1 | How well did the offeror describe how well it will perform public education and outreach activities designed to engage individuals with opioid and stimulant use disorders and their families? (SOW 4.1(1)) | 13 | 14.3% | 65.0 | 0.0 | |
| 2 | How well did the offeror describe how they will work closely with DHHS, local authority treatment providers, the Utah Support Advocates for Recovery Awareness, and other community treatment programs, including criminal justice agencies, and to develop educational materials and to schedule outreach events? (SOW 4.1(2)) | 13 | 14.3% | 65.0 | 0.0 | |
| 3 | How well did the offeror describe how they will ensure that information is appropriate for, and that outreach is provided to, homeless individuals and those involved in the criminal justice system? How well did they describe how they will engage with criminal justice systems? (SOW 4.1(3)) | 13 | 14.3% | 65.0 | 0.0 | |
| 4 | How well did the offeror describe the company infrastructure and services used to deliver healthcare enrollment assistance to consumers? How would a consumer initiate getting enrollment assistance with their agency? How well did the offeror provide a summary of the enrollment assistance process a consumer can expect when they seek services with their company? (SOW 4.1(4), 4.1(5)) | 8 | 8.8% | 40.0 | 0.0 | |
| 5 | How well did the offeror describe how they will conduct enrollment services in rural areas within 60-mile radius of the contractor's office and employ a health access assistant to conduct outreach activities and to assist clients in enrollment services for Box Elder, Cache, and Weber Counties? (SOW 4.1(6), 4.1(7)). | 7 | 7.7% | 35.0 | 0.0 | |
| 6 | How well did the offeror describe how they will support individuals through the entirety of the enrollment process, including follow up with individuals within three weeks of enrollment to verify payment of first premium, that the individual has set an appointment with a primary care physician, and has received their insurance card? (SOW 4.1(9)) | 9 | 9.9% | 45.0 | 0.0 | |
| 7 | How well did the offeror describe the curriculum/content the company uses or would plan to develop and use to facilitate train-the-trainer trainings on enrollment navigation for SUD service providers? (SOW 4.1(12)). | 9 | 9.9% | 45.0 | 0.0 | |
| 8 | How well did the offeror describe how they will ensure their services reach the intended population to be served, including (1) adults aged 18 and older, at risk of developing, or who currently have, an opioid or stimulant use disorder and who do not currently have Medicaid or other insurance coverage; and (2) youth aged 12 to 17, at risk of developing, or who currently have, an opioid or stimulant use disorder and their legal guardian(s) and who do not currently have Medicaid or other insurance coverage? (SOW 2.1) | 11 | 12.1% | 55.0 | 0.0 | |
| 9 | How well did the offeror describe their budget justification narrative summarizing the budget proposed in Form #3 Budget Utilization Form? | 8 | 8.8% | 40.0 | 0.0 | |
| Totals: | 100.0% | 455.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Status | |
| 60% | 273.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||
| Total Evaluation Points | 0% | 455.0 | 0.0 |
Scoresheet Summary
| DHHS91286 Outreach and Healthcare Access for Substance Use Disorders 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 | Have and maintain registration with the State of Utah, Department of Commerce, Division of Commerce and Commercial Code. | |||||||
| 2 | Have a minimum of three years of experience assisting consumers with Medicaid enrollment. | |||||||
| 3 | Have a minimum of two years of experience working with substance use treatment agencies, substance use community organizations, and carceral facilities to provide outreach and enrollment assistance to individuals with, or who are at risk of developing, opioid or stimulant use disorders. | |||||||
| Weight | Technical Scores | Offeror A | Offeror B | Offeror C | Offeror D | Offeror E | Offeror F | Offeror G |
| Criteria #1: Public education and outreach activities | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 13.0 | Criteria #1 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 65) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #2: Coordination with community partners | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 13.0 | Criteria #2 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 65) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #3: Unhoused/criminal justice outreach | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 13.0 | Criteria #3 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 65) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #4: Service delivery infrastructure | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 8.0 | Criteria #4 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 40) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #5: Geographical coverage | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 7.0 | Criteria #5 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 35) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #6: Enrollment assistance criteria | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 9.0 | Criteria #6 - Total Points (Total Possible 45) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #7: Train the trainer curriculum | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 9.0 | Criteria #7 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 45) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #8: Population reach | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 11.0 | Criteria #8 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 55) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Criteria #9: Budget utilization | ||||||||
| 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 | |
| 8.0 | Criteria #9 - Total Points (Total Possible Points = 40) | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Technical Points (Total Possible Points = 455) Minimum Threshold = 273 | 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 | |
| Grand Total Points (Total Possible = 455) | 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 .