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 the South Dakota Medical Marijuana program, detailing vendor presentation and proposal evaluation criteria. The document outlines three distinct evaluation frameworks: Vendor Presentation, Vendor 3 Additional Proposal, and Required Proposal criteria, each with weighted percentages across multiple categories such as ease of use, product functionality, flexibility, communication, integration, system design, security, and support. The evaluation process appears comprehensive, assessing vendors' technical competence, resources, past performance, project management techniques, and ability to meet specific programmatic requirements.
The scoring matrix demonstrates a holistic approach to vendor selection, with significant emphasis on technical capabilities and operational readiness. Key evaluation categories include specialized expertise (30%), available resources (25%), past performance record (15%), and various operational considerations like project management techniques (10%) and handling special project constraints (10%). While the document does not specify a precise contract value or timeline, it indicates a rigorous multi-dimensional assessment process designed to select a vendor that can effectively support the South Dakota Medical Marijuana program's technological and operational needs through detailed, nuanced scoring across technical, operational, and performance dimensions.
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 .