Attachment+D+-+Evaluation+Tool.docx

ATTACHMENT D

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

COST PROPOSAL

If offerors were required to place cost proposals in a separate sealed envelope, do not open the cost proposal until the technical proposals have been evaluated.

Not all members of the evaluation need to evaluate the cost proposal. The cost proposals may be evaluated by selected members of the evaluation committee, reviewed by group, and recorded on the evaluation summary sheets.

Any prompt payment discounts terms offered by the vendor are not taken into consideration in evaluating cost.

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SCORING

Name of Offeror:

Name of Evaluation Committee Member:

Date of Review:

RFP Title: Crisis Residential Unit______________________________________

RFP Number: 325-23-930-091

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

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? Did the offeror identify any pertinent issues and potential problems related to the work to be completed?

Evaluator’s Notes:

B) How well did the offeror define their proposed strategy to carry out the requirements of Section 2.03?

C) How well did the offeror describe how it will establish and maintain the necessary facility within the city limits of STATE’s accompanying human service center?

D) How well did the offeror describe how it will implement the six SAMHSA guidelines for Trauma-Informed Care when carrying out the requirements of Section 2.03?

E) How well did the offeror describe how it will maintain the staffing expectations and training, in order to provide the required services 24/7/365 as detailed in Section 2.03?

F) How well did the offeror’s detailed training curriculum demonstrate how it will prepare staff to meet the needs of the adult clients served, including all levels of care?

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

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’s narrative statements set out the management plan it intends to follow and how well did they illustrate how the plan will serve to accomplish the work and furnish the services described in Section 2.03 Scope of Work? How well does the offeror provide detailed information that sets out the methodology it intends to employ to accomplish the work?

B) Did the offeror include a narrative or organizational chart the describes the organization of offeror’s staff and, if so, did the narrative or organizational chart illustrate lines of authority and designate the staff members responsible and accountable for the completion of each component of the RFP?

C) How well did the offeror describe how it will provide 24-hour supervision of residents with a 1:5 ratio (minimum of two staff per shift) that includes certified mental health technicians, who are certified in medication administration, and a unit supervisor?

D) 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

Thirty (30) of the total possible points will be assigned to this criterion.

Rating Scale (30 Point Maximum)

Point Value

Explanation

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 describe its experience in providing similar services as requested in Section 2.03 Scope of Work?

Evaluator’s Notes:

B) How well did the offeror demonstrate its ability to effectively work with the dually diagnosed population? Does the offeror demonstrate a history of working effectively with behavioral health service center systems of care and other community stakeholders? How well did the offeror demonstrate its ability to facilitate holistic, stage-based intervention strategies for the individuals served and provide evidence of ability to track and report on identified outcome measures?

Evaluators Notes:

C) How well does the offeror demonstrate its current work experience in the delivery of service to adult clients who are dually diagnosed (chemically dependent/seriously mentally ill)? How well does the offeror describe their programs that currently provide services to adult clients? Did the offeror identify the total number of clients that they serve as an agency and the total number that meet the current work experience requirement identified above? How well does the offeror describe their training and experience working with individuals in behavioral health crisis to include clients struggling with withdrawal from substances?

D) How well does the offeror identify how they view their role as a service provider, and do they provide the history of services that their agency has provided that clearly defines the offeror’s capacity to provide the services requested in this RFP? How well does the offeror describe their treatment orientation and philosophy as it relates to the provision of this identified service to adults?

E) Did the offeror provide information specific to the staff assigned to accomplish the work called for in this RFP, including any applicable license and certifications?

F) Does the offeror provide a narrative description of the organization of the project team and a staff roster that identifies each staff member providing services through a contract resulting from this RFP and provide resumes of each staff member? If offeror has vacant positions, does the offeror identify the job description of the staff member(s) to be recruited, including minimum qualifications of the staff members(s)?

POINT TOTAL ___________

Cost Proposal

Twenty (20) of the total possible points will be assigned to the total cost.

Not all members of the evaluation committee need to evaluate the Cost Proposal. The Procurement Officer will review the Cost Proposal to determine responsiveness. If the Cost Proposal is responsive, the Procurement Officer will evaluate the Cost Proposal. After the technical proposal has been evaluated, the Cost Proposal scores can be recorded on the offeror evaluation totals sheets.

Applying Preference Laws

STATE will not consider any prompt payment discount terms proposed by the offeror when evaluating cost. The reciprocal preference law, N.D.C.C. § 44-08-01, was repealed effective August 1, 2023.

In the event, N.D.C.C. § 54-44.4-05.1 requires that if two or more proposals contain identical pricing or receive identical evaluation scores, preference must be given to a resident North Dakota bidder, seller, vendor, offeror, or contractor as defined in N.D.C.C. § 44-08-02. In the event the tie is not resolved by application of this law, N.D.A.C. § 4-12-11-05 will be applied.

For a listing of state preference laws, visit the following website:

· North Dakota State Procurement Office Website: North Dakota Purchasing Preferences (nd.gov) For assistance contact: 701-328-2683 or infospo@nd.gov

Converting Cost to Points

The Cost Proposal with the lowest monthly projection cost will receive the maximum number of points allocated to cost. The point allocations for cost on the other proposals will be determined as follows:

Price of Lowest Monthly Projection Cost Proposal Price of Proposal Being Rated X Total Points for Cost Available = Awarded Points

RFP Evaluation Summary

Name of RFP: Crisis Residential Unit

RFP Number: 325-23-930-091

Offeror Being Evaluated:

Evaluator Name:

Date:

Technical Evaluation (Maximum 80 Points)

Cost Evaluation (Maximum 20 Points)

1. Calculated points awarded for price.

Price of Lowest Monthly Projection Price of Proposal Being Rated X 20 points = Awarded Points

4. Cost

Total

Offeror Evaluation Totals

Name of RFP: Crisis Residential Unit

RFP Number: 325-23-930-091

Name of Offeror:

Date:

Technical Evaluation Criteria

POINTS

Maximum

Evaluator Totals

Grand Total

Note: Sum of all individual scores.

Technical Proposal Score Note: Total of individual points divided by the number of evaluators (80 POINT MAXIMUM).

Cost Proposal Score Note: (20 POINT MAXIMUM)

TOTAL