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 Members:

Date of Review:

RFP Title: Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) Rate Model and Value Based Purchasing (VBF)____________________________________________

RFP Number: 325-25-415-054

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 define their proposed strategy to carry out the requirements of Section 2.02 Scope of Work?

Evaluator’s Notes:

B) How well does the offeror’s comprehensive narrative statements illustrate their understanding of rate setting practices, global based budgeting, and VBP relevant to the requirements of Section 2.02 Scope of Work of this RFP, as well as the state and federal law?

C) How well does the offeror demonstrate their familiarity with the current PRTF licensure in North Dakota and North Dakota’s rate setting process and timelines as discussed in Section 2.01 Background Information?

D) Has the offeror provided a detailed plan and will the plan be sufficient to accomplish the requirements for each of the tasks in Section 2.02 Scope of Work?

E) Has 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-Five (25) of the total possible points will be assigned to this criterion.

Rating Scale (25) 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 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? Did the offeror confirm they will meet the April 30, 2026, deadline for submitting the final report to STATE?

Evaluator’s Notes:

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

Twenty-five (25) of the total possible points will be assigned to this criterion.

Rating Scale (25 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) 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) Did the offeror submit two letters of reference that demonstrate the offeror's capacity to provide the services sought in this RFP?

C) 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?

D) Has the offeror described the offeror’s experience in rate setting, global budgeting, and VBP services being purchased or in providing services similar to the service being purchased?

E) Did the offeror describe its experience in rate model analysis, cost report analysis, and development of outcome measures.

F) Did the offeror provide a list of previous or current Medicaid accounts whose scope of work is considered similar to the scope of work included in this RFP?

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 total 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 Total Cost Proposal Price of Proposal Being Rated X Total Points for Cost Available = Awarded Points

RFP Evaluation Summary

Name of RFP: Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) Rate Model and Value Based Purchasing (VBP)

RFP Number: 325-25-415-054

Offeror Being Evaluated:

Evaluator Names:

Date:

Technical Evaluation (Maximum 80 Points)

Cost Evaluation (Maximum 20 Points)

Calculated points awarded for price.

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

4. Cost

Total