Copy of Appendix H - Evaluation Scoring Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 25RFP-26-0904004-0001
- Issued by
- Minnehaha County, South Dakota
About this file
This document is an Evaluation Scoring Matrix for the South Dakota Medical Marijuana program's vendor selection process. The matrix outlines detailed evaluation criteria across multiple categories for vendor proposals, with three distinct sections of evaluation criteria: Vendor Presentation, Additional Proposal Evaluation, and Required Proposal Evaluation. Each section contains specific weighted categories that will be used to assess and score potential system vendors, with total percentages equaling 100% in each section.
The evaluation criteria cover comprehensive aspects of vendor capabilities, including system functionality, ease of use, communication features, integration potential, reporting capabilities, system design, security measures, support and maintenance, training plans, and overall cost. Key scoring areas include specialized expertise (30%), resources availability (25%), past performance record (15%), and project management techniques (10%), with additional nuanced subcategories that assess technical competence, operational flexibility, and ability to meet the specific needs of the South Dakota Medical Marijuana program's technological infrastructure and regulatory requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 43
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
Vendor Presentation
| Vendor Presentation Evaluation Criteria | |
| Category | Percentage |
| Ease of Use: evaluates the use friendliness of the proposed system. The system that is intuitive and easy to navigate will score higher for this criterion | 30% |
| Product Functionality: evaluates various functionality that fulfills the requirement listed in the RFP. This also evaluates additional or optional functionality that is unique to the proposed system | 30% |
| Flexibility: evaluates the flexibility of functionality and process within the proposed system. The system that can accommodate to unique needs to South Dakota Medical Marijuana program will score higher for this criterion. | 30% |
| Adherence to Use Cases: evaluates the preparedness of each vendor. The vendor that is well prepared and thoroughly demonstrate the Use Cases will score higher for this criterion | 10% |
| Total | 100% |
Vendor 3
| Additional Proposal Evaluation Criteria | |
| Category | Percentage |
| Communication: evaluates the proposed system’s ability to accommodate secure and direct communication between the department staff and customers, and system-wide alerts for any potential issues or important information. A system with easy-to-use system wide communication features and the ability to directly communicate with the appropriate end users will score higher for this criterion. | 5% |
| Integration: evaluates the proposed system’s ability to smoothly integrate with various systems required for Medical Marijuana program. | 10% |
| Operation: evaluates proposed system’s ability to provide functionality and flexibility required for South Dakota Medical Marijuana program. A system with flexible features that ensures data accuracy and streamlines internal workflow will score higher for this criterion. | 15% |
| Reporting: evaluates proposed system’s ability to provide both template and custom reporting to meet the various reporting needs. The custom reporting function that is flexible and easy to use will score higher for this criterion. | 10% |
| System Design: evaluates the foundational system design of the proposed system. These are including, but not limited to, account creation, document upload, and card or license issuance. | 20% |
| Security: evaluates proposed system’s various security features and level of security offered as a safeguard to protect sensitive data. | 15% |
| Support and Maintenance: evaluates the level and types of customer support and maintenance plan offered for the proposed system. The support and maintenance plan that provides clear timeline and deliverables, as well as clear expectation of turnaround time for maintenance and support will score higher for this criterion. | 10% |
| Training: evaluates the training plan. The training plan that includes a detailed timeline of training with clear expectations of deliverables will score higher for this criterion. | 5% |
| Cost: evaluates the proposed cost | 10% |
| Total | 100% |
| Required Proposal Evaluation Criteria | |
| Category | Percentage |
| Specialized expertise, capabilities, and technical competence as demonstrated by the proposed approach and methodology to meet the project requirements. | 30% |
| Resources available to perform the work, including any specialized services, within the specified time limits for the project. | 25% |
| Record of past performance, including price and cost data from previous projects, quality of work, ability to meet schedules, cost control, and contract administration | 15% |
| Availability to the project locale | 5% |
| Familiarity with the project locale | 5% |
| Proposed project management techniques | 10% |
| Ability and proven history in handling special project constraints | 10% |
| Total | 100% |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .