Attachment H - Evaluation Matrix (EXAMPLE).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 129 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Denver Health RFP# 1184 - Audit Services
- Solicitation number
- 1184
- Issued by
- Denver County, Denver City, Colorado
About this file
The file is an Evaluation Matrix for the Denver Health and Hospital Authority's Request for Proposal (RFP# 1184) for Audit Services, involving multiple related healthcare entities including OMC QALICB, Inc., Denver Health and Hospitals Foundation, and Denver Health Medical Plan, Inc. The RFP seeks qualified auditing services for a healthcare organization, with a specific emphasis on candidates possessing comprehensive knowledge of healthcare services, including hospital facilities, outpatient clinics, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), physician services, and managed care perspectives.
The evaluation matrix details a comprehensive selection process with multiple weighted criteria, including past performance (30%), management plan (40%), ability to perform (15%), overall experience (10%), cost-consciousness (20%), interviews (25%), and fee considerations (25%). Evaluation will be conducted using a 1-10 scale, with key assessment areas including project meeting customer expectations, schedule maintenance, workmanship quality, professionalism, budget adherence, and minimal change orders. The selection process appears designed to thoroughly vet potential audit service providers through a multi-stage assessment that considers technical capabilities, experience, cost-effectiveness, and overall organizational competence.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Denver Health RFP# 1184 - Audit Services.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment D - Blank w-9 form.pdf | ||
| Attachment A - Statement of Work (Audit Services).docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment C - Service Agreement.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment G - Simplified Cost Breakdown.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment F - DHHA IT Security Risk Stratification Questionnaire.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment B - Questions and Clarifications Form.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment E - Voluntary Self-Certification Forms.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
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 .