Attachment H - Evaluation Matrix (EXAMPLE).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 129 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Sleep Apnea Testing Solution
- Solicitation number
- 1183
- Issued by
- Denver County, Denver City, Colorado
About this file
The document is an Evaluation Matrix for a procurement process, specifically related to Denver Health and Hospital Authority, involving a Sleep Apnea Testing Solution contract opportunity in Colorado. The matrix outlines detailed selection criteria for contractor evaluation, which includes multiple weighted assessment categories such as ability to perform (30-15%), overall experience (10-5%), cost consciousness (20-10%), management plan (40-20%), interview performance (25%), and fee considerations (25%). The evaluation process involves a comprehensive scoring methodology using a 1-10 scale, with criteria spanning project performance, scheduling, workmanship, professionalism, budget adherence, and overall vendor reliability.
The evaluation framework includes specific performance rating sheets that enable detailed vendor assessment across multiple dimensions, including general qualifications, value-added services, scheduling capabilities, cost structures, and contractual agreement terms. Key evaluation components involve assessing whether vendors meet customer expectations, maintain project schedules, demonstrate quality workmanship, exhibit professional conduct, minimize construction disruptions, complete projects within budget, and provide appropriate value for pricing. The matrix provides a structured approach for ranking and comparing multiple vendors (up to five) based on weighted performance criteria, ultimately facilitating an objective selection process for the sleep apnea testing solution procurement.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment A - Statement of Work - Denver Health Sleep Studies.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment E - Voluntary Self-Certification Forms.pdf | ||
| Attachment G - Simplified Cost Breakdown.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment D - Blank w-9 form.pdf | ||
| Attachment F - DHHA IT Security Risk Stratification Questionnaire.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment I - DHHA_Cybersecurity_Risk Assessment-Official.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Denver Health - RFP Template - Oct 2023.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment B - Questions and Clarifications Form.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment C - Service Agreement.doc | DOC 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
PIPS Selection Criteria
| PIP'S Selection Criteria | ||||
| Contractor Selection | ||||
| Past Performance & Management Plan Criteria | Interview & Final Selection Criteria | |||
| 1) Ability to perform | 30% | 1) Ability to perform | 15% | |
| 2) Overall experience | 10% | 2) Past experience | 5.0% | |
| 3) Cost conscientious | 20% | 3) Cost conscientious | 10% | |
| 4) Management Plan | 40% | 4) Management Plan | 20% | |
| 100% | 5) Interview | 25% | ||
| 6) Fee ($'s) | 25% | |||
| 100% |
| Past Performance | |||
| 1) | Ability to perform | 4) | Management Plan |
| Project meet customers expectations? | Demonstrated ability to successfully complete project? | ||
| Ability to maintain project schedule (complete on time or early)? | Current workload | ||
| Quality of workmanship? | Proposed project schedule | ||
| Quality of materials? | Qualifications of Key Personnel | ||
| Professionalism (actions & appearance of personnel)? | Quality of Proposed Subcontractors | ||
| Was construction excessively disruptive? | Knowledge of Project? | ||
| 2) | Overall Experience | Identified risks to addressed | |
| Would you hire this firm again? | Method of addressing risks | ||
| 3) | Cost conscientious | Proposed methods of improving project? | |
| Project completed within budget? | Demonstrated similar projects? | ||
| Minimal change orders? | |||
| Was price appropriate to value received? | 5) | Interview | |
| Demonstrated similar projects? | |||
| Demonstrated familiarity with project? | |||
| Demonstrated qualifications of key personnel? | |||
| Demonstrated team concept with sub contractors? | |||
| Demonstrated knowledge of similar projects by sub-contractors? | |||
| Demonstrated ability to mitigate project risks? | |||
| Participation in project by firm's PM/Owner? | |||
| Proposed methods of improving project? | |||
| Comfort level with team leader? |
Firm Performance Rating Sheet Performance Criteria Evaluation Data Sheet
INSTRUCTIONS - Please Complete The Following
| 1 | Fill in the EVALUATOR'S information. | ||
| 2 | Verify to whom you are Evaluating is listed on Form. | ||
| 3 | Scale each criteria 1 to 10, 10 being the best. | ||
| 4 | Fax to: | ||
| Mr. Tom Sangster | |||
| Purchasing Director, Denver Health and Hospital Authority | |||
| Fax: | 303-436-3225 | ||
| Phone: | 303-436-3298 | ||
| RE: Performance Evaluation | |||
| Project Name, Project ### | |||
| Rate the Firm | |||
| EVALUATOR'S Name and Company | Phone Number |
| Would not Hire Again | Would Definitely Hire Again | |||||||||||
| Item | Performance Criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 1 | Project meet customers expectations? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 2 | Ability to maintain project schedule (complete on time or early)? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 3 | Quality of workmanship? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 4 | Quality of materials? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 5 | Professionalism (actions & appearance of personnel)? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 6 | Was construction excessively disruptive? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 7 | Would you hire this firm again? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 8 | Project completed within budget? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 9 | Minimal change orders? | 10% | ||||||||||
| 10 | Was price appropriate to value received? | 10% |
Sum of Weights 100% 0
Name of Firm Being Rated
RFP Rating Sheet
RFP #
INSTRUCTIONS - Please Complete The Following
| 1 | Fill in the EVALUATOR'S information. |
| 2 | Give ratings only for the areas listed. 1-100 rating, 100 being the best. |
| 3 | Enter rating in white column to the left of the gray column for each category. |
| 4 | Each line will calculate based upon the weight percentage listed. |
| 5 | Rank Order Firms |
EVALUATOR'S Name:
| VENDOR #1 | VENDOR #2 | VENDOR #3 | VENDOR #4 | VENDOR #5 - | ||||||||
| Weight | Item | Rating Criterion | ||||||||||
| 5% | 1 | General Information/Qualifications | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 20% | 2 | Value Added | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 30% | 3 | Scheduling | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 35% | 4 | Costs | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 10% | 5 | Contractual Agreement | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 100% | TOTAL | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rank Order
NOTES
VENDOR #1
VENDOR #2
VENDOR #3
VENDOR #4
image1.jpeg image2.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .