Addendum 1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 26RFP-26-0904004-018
- Issued by
- South Dakota
About this file
This is an Addendum file containing proposal evaluation criteria for the South Dakota Department of Health, Office of Family Nutrition Services' WIC Program Statewide Personnel & Service Delivery contract (RFP #26-0904004-018). The addendum establishes two evaluation frameworks: a Vendor Presentation evaluation with four criteria (Ease of Use at 30%, Product Functionality at 30%, Flexibility at 30%, and Adherence to Use Cases at 10%) and a Required Proposal Evaluation with seven criteria weighted as follows—Specialized Expertise at 30%, Resources Available at 25%, Record of Past Performance at 15%, Availability to Project Locale at 10%, Familiarity with Project Locale at 10%, Proposed Project Management Techniques at 5%, and Ability to Handle Special Constraints at 5%. Vendor presentations are to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10. The Letter of Intent is due July 13, 2026 at 5:00 PM CST, offeror questions are due July 20, 2026 with State responses by August 3, 2026, and proposals are due August 24, 2026 by 5:00 PM CST, with anticipated award on September 14, 2026. The selected partner agency will recruit, employ, and supervise statewide WIC personnel across five designated regions under a five-year contract commencing October 1, 2026, with oral presentations required at the offeror's expense.
The cost proposal must include personnel costs covering salaries and benefits for all staff positions (Receptionists, Senior Secretaries, WIC Public Health Assistants, Nutrition Educators, Registered Dietitians, Program Assistants, Program Specialists, and data/informatics staff), travel and per diem reimbursed at rates established by the Bureau of Finance and Management, and narrative justification for supplies, equipment, rent, and other costs, with in-kind contributions documented separately. Staffing ratios must maintain 350-400 participants or 250-285 families per full-time FTE. Funding derives from federal appropriations through the USDA Food and Nutrition Service allocated annually to the WIC program, with cost increases not to exceed rates approved during the Legislative session. All personnel must possess a valid driver's license and reside within 30 miles of their primary clinic location, with position-specific educational and credentialing requirements including high school diplomas for administrative roles, bachelor's or master's degrees in nutrition-related fields for Nutrition Educators, and current RDN registration and South Dakota licensure for Registered Dietitians.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Response to Offeror Questions document.docx | DOCX document | |
| Map.pdf | ||
| Appendix C - RFP WIC Services budget.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Appendix A - Job Descriptions.pdf | ||
| RFP Document.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
Vendor Presentation
| Vendor Presentation Evaluation Criteria | |
| Category | Percentage |
| Ease of Use: evaluates the use friendliness of the proposed system. The system that is intuitive and easy to navigate will score higher for this criterion | 30% |
| Product Functionality: evaluates various functionality that fulfills the requirement listed in the RFP. This also evaluates additional or optional functionality that is unique to the proposed system | 30% |
| Flexibility: evaluates the flexibility of functionality and process within the proposed system. The system that can accommodate to unique needs to South Dakota Medical Marijuana program will score higher for this criterion. | 30% |
| Adherence to Use Cases: evaluates the preparedness of each vendor. The vendor that is well prepared and thoroughly demonstrate the Use Cases will score higher for this criterion | 10% |
| Total | 100% |
WIC Services RFP Rate the proposal on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score.
| Required Proposal Evaluation Criteria | |||||||
| Category | Percentage | Evaluator A | Evaluator B | Evaluator C | Evaluator D | Evaluator E | Average |
| Specialized expertise, capabilities, and technical competence as demonstrated by the proposed approach and methodology to meet the project requirements. | 30% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | |||||
| Resources available to perform the work, including any specialized services, within the specified time limits for the project. | 25% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | |||||
| Record of past performance, including price and cost data from previous projects, quality of work, ability to meet schedules, cost control, and contract administration | 15% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | |||||
| Availability to the project locale | 10% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | |||||
| Familiarity with the project locale | 10% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | |||||
| Proposed project management techniques | 5% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | |||||
| Ability and proven history in handling special project constraints | 5% | ERROR:#DIV/0! | |||||
| Total | 100% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total Required | 0 | ||||||
| Avg. Required | 0 |
Summary
| Agency name | |
| Total Score: Required Criteria | 0 |
| Combined Total | 0 |
| Rank | 1 |
| Average: Required Criteria | 0 |
| Combined Average | 0 |
| Rank | 1 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .