Attachment+B+-+Evaluation+Tool.docx
DOCX document 32 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 325-24-610-022
- Issued by
- Grand Forks County, Nelson County, Pembina County, Walsh County, North Dakota
About this file
This document is an Evaluation Tool for a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the state of North Dakota to provide Right Track services in Grand Forks, Nelson, Pembina, and Walsh counties. The RFP outlines the evaluation criteria and scoring methodology to be used by the evaluation committee in assessing proposals. The key criteria include the offeror's understanding of the scope of work, management plan, and experience and qualifications, with a total of 100 possible points. The RFP also includes details on the specific services to be provided, the geographic areas to be covered, and the timeline for the project.
The Evaluation Tool provides specific guidance on how each evaluation criterion will be scored, using a rating scale from 0 to the maximum points assigned to that criterion. Evaluators are instructed to provide a total score for each evaluation criterion rather than scoring individual questions. The document also requires evaluators to certify that they have no conflicts of interest with the offerors. The final evaluation summary includes the total scores for each offeror across the three main criteria.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP+325-24-610-022.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment+A+-+Sample+POS+Agreement.docx | DOCX document | |
| Notice+of+Intent+to+Award.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
ATTACHMENT B
EVALUATION TOOL
Proposals will be reviewed for responsiveness and then evaluated using the criteria identified in this RFP.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATORS
Each evaluation criterion has been assigned a specific number of points. The questions under each evaluated area help you measure the quality of offeror’s response. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion.
RATING SCALE FOR ASSESSING OFFEROR RESPONSES
This rating scale is intended to establish guidelines within that range to ensure members of the RFP evaluation committee perform their evaluation with consistency. You may assign any value for a given criteria from 0 to the maximum number of points. A zero value typically constitutes no response or an inability of offeror to meet the criterion. In contrast, the maximum value should constitute a high standard of meeting the criterion. If a specific criterion would only yield a yes or no response (e.g., offeror can submit an electronic report in required format by noon Friday), the evaluator should award either the maximum points or a zero.
For Example: “Experience and Qualifications” is an evaluation criterion receiving a weighting of 20 of the total possible points. Using a 100 Point Scale, a maximum of 20 points can be awarded. The rating scale would be:
Rating Scale (20 POINT Maximum)
Point Value
Explanation
| 0 |
| None. Not addressed or response of no value |
| 1-5 |
| Fair. Limited applicability |
| 6-10 |
| Good. Some applicability |
| 11-15 |
| Very Good. Substantial applicability |
| 16-20 |
| Excellent. Total applicability |
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING
Name of Offeror:
Name of Evaluation Committee Member:
Date of Review:
RFP Title: Right Track Services in Grand Forks, Nelson, Pembina, and Walsh Counties____
RFP Number: 325-24-610-022
I hereby certify that I do not have a conflict of interest with this offeror. I further certify that I have reviewed the Request for Proposal Evaluators Guide and that neither I nor my immediate family members have a conflict of interest with regard to this offeror who submitted a proposal in response to this Request for Proposal, in accordance with N.D.A.C. § 4-12-04-04.
Signature____________________________________Date________________
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS USED TO SCORE THIS RFP IS 100
Understanding of the Scope of Work
Thirty (30) of the total possible evaluation points are assigned to this section.
Rating Scale (30 Point Maximum)
Point Value
Explanation
| 0 |
| None. Not addressed or response of no value |
| 1-7 |
| Fair. Limited applicability |
| 8-15 |
| Good. Some applicability |
| 16-22 |
| Very Good. Substantial applicability |
| 23-30 |
| Excellent. Total applicability |
Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion.
A) How well does the offeror’s comprehensive narrative statements illustrate their understanding of the requirements of Section 2.03 Scope of Work of this RFP, as well as any applicable state and federal law?
Evaluator’s Notes:
B) If the offeror identified any pertinent issues and potential problems related to the work to be completed, how well do they provide solutions?
POINT TOTAL ___________
Management Plan
Twenty (20) of the total possible points will be assigned to this criterion.
Rating Scale (20 Point Maximum)
Point Value
Explanation
| 0 |
| None. Not addressed or response of no value |
| 1-5 |
| Fair. Limited applicability |
| 6-10 |
| Good. Some applicability |
| 11-15 |
| Very Good. Substantial applicability |
| 16-20 |
| Excellent. Total applicability |
Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion.
A) How well did the offeror provide a comprehensive work plan and timeline that set out the management plan it intends to follow and illustrate how the plan will be successfully implemented? Did the timeline include milestones with estimated dates?
B) Did the offeror include an organizational chart and, if so, did the chart describe the offeror’s organization and illustrate lines of authority and communication and designate the individual(s) responsible and accountable for assuring the services are provided according to the offeror’s proposal and STATE’s requirements? Did the offeror identify, by name and title, the offeror’s staff who will be involved in carrying out this project?
C) Has the offeror disclosed any instances where the firm or any individuals working on the contract resulting from the RFP has a possible conflict of interest, and, if so, the nature of that conflict (e.g. employed by state of North Dakota)?
POINT TOTAL ___________
Experience and Qualifications
Fifty (50) of the total possible points will be assigned to this criterion.
Rating Scale (50 Point Maximum)
Point Value
Explanation
| 0 |
| None. Not addressed or response of no value |
| 1-13 |
| Fair. Limited applicability |
| 14-25 |
| Good. Some applicability |
| 26-37 |
| Very Good. Substantial applicability |
| 38-50 |
| Excellent. Total applicability |
Proposals will be evaluated against the questions set out below. Do not assign points to individual questions; instead, award a total score for each evaluation criterion.
A) Did the offeror provide a brief history and describe the organization of the firm, including the number of years the offeror has provided the type of work requested in this RFP?
B) How well did the offeror describe the type of work each of the offeror’s staff will perform in carrying out this project, describe relevant credentials and experience of each staff member, and provide a resume for each?
POINT TOTAL ___________
RFP Evaluation Summary
Name of RFP: Right Track Services in Grand Forks, Nelson, Pembina, and Walsh Counties
RFP Number: 325-24-610-022
Offeror Being Evaluated:
Evaluator Name:
Date:
Technical Evaluation (Maximum 100 Points)
| Maximum Points by Category |
| Score |
| 1. Understanding of the Scope of Work |
| 30 |
| 2. Management Plan |
| 20 |
| 3. Experience and Qualifications |
| 50 |
Total
Offeror Evaluation Totals
Name of RFP: Right Track Services in Grand Forks, Nelson, Pembina, and Walsh Counties
RFP Number: 325-24-610-022
Name of Offeror:
Date:
Technical Evaluation Criteria
POINTS
Maximum
| Evaluator |
| Evaluator |
| Evaluator |
| Evaluator |
| Evaluator |
1. Understanding of the Scope of Work
2. Management Plan
3. Experience and Qualifications
Evaluator Totals
Grand Total
Note: Sum of all individual scores.
| TOTAL |
| Note: Total of individual points divided by the number of evaluators (100 POINT MAXIMUM). |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .