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
The file is an Evaluation Scoring Matrix for a South Dakota Medical Marijuana program procurement, detailing comprehensive vendor evaluation criteria across multiple categories. The document outlines three distinct evaluation frameworks: a primary vendor presentation scoring matrix and two additional evaluation criteria sets focusing on technical, operational, and performance aspects. The evaluation matrices cover areas such as system usability, product functionality, flexibility, communication capabilities, integration potential, operational effectiveness, reporting capabilities, system design, security features, support and maintenance, training provisions, and cost considerations. Each category is assigned a specific percentage weight, with the vendor presentation matrix allocating 30% each to ease of use, product functionality, and flexibility, and 10% to adherence to use cases.
The evaluation criteria emphasize a holistic assessment of vendor capabilities, with specific focus on specialized expertise, technical competence, available resources, past performance records, project management techniques, and ability to handle project constraints. The scoring methodology appears designed to comprehensively evaluate vendors' technological solutions, operational readiness, and overall capability to meet the South Dakota Medical Marijuana program's specific requirements. While the document does not specify exact point thresholds or detailed scoring mechanisms, it provides a structured approach to assessing vendor proposals across technical, operational, and strategic dimensions, indicating a rigorous selection process that goes beyond simple cost comparisons to evaluate the full spectrum of vendor qualifications and solution characteristics.
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 .