Copy of Evaluator Scoring Worksheet - Summary (Internal) Completed.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Program Integrity Case Management (PICM) and Fraud Abuse Detection (FAD) Analytics Solution
- Solicitation number
- 122125 O3
- Issued by
- Blaine County, Nebraska
About this file
The document is an Evaluator Scoring Worksheet for the State of Nebraska's Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Request for Proposal (RFP) 122125 for a Program Integrity Case Management System. The solicitation sought a comprehensive cloud-based software solution to replace the current Medicaid program case management system, with proposal responses due by July 10, 2025. Two vendors, Alivia Analytics and Deloitte & Touche LLP, submitted responsive proposals, with Alivia Analytics ranking first with 91.63 total points and Deloitte & Touche LLP ranking second with 75.59 points. The contract is expected to have an initial five-year term with options for two additional two-year renewals, with an implementation date no later than October 31, 2026.
The scoring worksheet reveals a detailed evaluation process across multiple categories, including Corporate Overview (25 points), Technical Response (60 points), and Cost Sheet (15 points). Alivia Analytics submitted the lowest cost proposal at $4,183,129.58, compared to Deloitte & Touche LLP's $12,083,027.00, which significantly impacted their cost points (15.00 vs. 5.19 points). The evaluation involved multiple state employees from different departments, including Program Evaluation and Information Systems & Technology (IS&T) groups, who scored vendors on various technical and operational criteria. The project requires integration with existing state systems like the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) and the Nebraska Family Online Client User System (N-FOCUS), with mandatory vendor qualifications including a current implemented Program Integrity Case Management system with another State Medicaid agency.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Vendors Score Summary RFP 122125 O3 Program Integrity Case Management System Vendor Score Summary
Include Oral Interviews: Yes
| Bidder Ranking | |||||
| Vendor Name | Interviews | Total Points | Ranking | Vendor Name | Score |
| Alivia Analytics | 0.00 | 91.63 | 1 | Alivia Analytics | 91.63 |
| Deloitte & Touche LLP | 0.00 | 75.59 | 2 | Deloitte & Touche LLP | 75.59 |
| 3 | |||||
| 4 | |||||
| 5 | |||||
| 6 | |||||
| 7 | |||||
| 8 | |||||
| 9 | |||||
| 10 | |||||
| 11 | |||||
| 12 |
Vendor Information
| No | Vendor Name | Interviews | Total Points | Points with Oral Interview | Responsiveness | is Responsive | Number of Responsive Bidders: | 2 |
| 1 | Alivia Analytics | 0.00 | 91.63 | 91.63 | Responsive | TRUE | ||
| 2 | Deloitte & Touche LLP | 0.00 | 75.59 | 75.59 | Responsive | TRUE | ||
| 3 | PlantStreet Inc. | 0.00 | 0.00 | Non Responsive | FALSE | |||
| 4 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Non Responsive | FALSE | ||||
| 5 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Non Responsive | FALSE |
Cost points RFP 122125 O3 Program Integrity Case Management System Vendor Cost Summary
| Bidder Name: | Alivia Analytics | Deloitte & Touche LLP | PlantStreet Inc. | |
| Total Overall Cost Part I & Part II | ||||
| (Enter Costs for each vendor) | $4,183,129.58 | $12,083,027.00 | $0.00 | |
| Points Awarded (Auto Generated) | 15.00 | 5.19 | ||
| Least Proposed Amount | $ 4,183,129.58 | |||
| Max Points | 15 |
Evaluators Final Score RFP 122125 O3 Program Integrity Case Management System Evaluators Scores
| Vendor Name | Alivia Analytics | Deloitte & Touche LLP | ||||||||
| Max Points per section: | 25 | 15 | 45 | 20 | 25 | 15 | 45 | 20 | ||
| Evaluator Group | Scored Section | |||||||||
| Evaluator | Corporate | |||||||||
| Overview | Technical |
Response (IS&T) Technical Response
| (Program) | Vendor Demo | Corporate |
| Overview | Technical |
Response (IS&T) Technical Response
| (Program) | Vendor Demo | |||||||||
| Program Evaluation | Alex Zimmer | 24.00 | 42.00 | 0.00 | 21.00 | 35.50 | 0.00 | |||
| Anne Harvey | 23.20 | 43.50 | 0.00 | 16.60 | 28.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Jeremy Brunssen | 20.25 | 42.00 | 0.00 | 22.50 | 38.75 | 0.00 | ||||
| Will Morgan | 22.85 | 41.28 | 0.00 | 21.85 | 38.54 | 0.00 | ||||
| IS&T Evaluation | Dawn Sanford | 20.00 | 13.65 | 0.00 | 24.00 | 14.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Jill Hattan | 20.00 | 13.50 | 0.00 | 19.00 | 15.50 | 0.00 | ||||
| Mark Nelson | 17.75 | 12.68 | 0.00 | 22.25 | 13.02 | 0.00 | ||||
| Score Average (per evaluator group) | 21.15 | 13.28 | 42.20 | 0.00 | 21.03 | 14.17 | 35.20 | 0.00 | ||
| Total Average Score (without Vendor Demonstration) | ||||||||||
| (0-85) | 76.63 | 70.40 | ||||||||
| Cost($) Points (0-15) | 15.00 | 5.19 | ||||||||
| Total Points (without Vendor Demonstration)(0-100) | 91.63 | 75.59 | ||||||||
| Total Points With Vendor Demonstration (0-120) | 91.63 | 75.59 |
Evaluator Information
| Evaluator Group | Program Evaluation | Program Evaluation | Program Evaluation | Program Evaluation | IS&T Evaluation | IS&T Evaluation | IS&T Evaluation |
| Evaluator Name | Alex Zimmer | Anne Harvey | Jeremy Brunssen | Will Morgan | Dawn Sanford | Jill Hattan | Mark Nelson |
| Evaluator Email | Alex.Zimmer@nebraska.gov | Anne.Harvey@nebraska.gov | Jeremy.Brunssen@nebraska.gov | William.Morgan@nebraska.gov | Dawn.Sanford@nebraska.gov | Jill.Hattan@nebraska.gov | Mark.Nelson@nebraska.gov |
| Send Evaluator Packet |
(via Email)
| Set Due date to | |
| get back evaluations | 1/17/25 |
Scoring Summary Template
| RFP 120277 O3 Vital Records Management System | Corporate Overview | Program & Functional | IS&T Technical | Cost | Interviews | Total | ||
| Bidder Name: | Bidder 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Evaluators will read the RFP requirements and then review the bidder’s proposal response and assess how well it meets the needs of the State as defined by the RFP. Evaluator Worksheet will be used by the evaluators. Evaluators will record their score in the shaded box on the Evaluator Worksheet. Scores will be based on the number of points for each Proposal Section, which is provided in the Scoring Range column of the worksheet. | ||||||
| Overall Evaluator Scoring Worksheet | ||||||
| RFP Section | RFP Ref | |||||
| Page | RFP Scoring Requirements | Scoring Range | Evaluator Score | |||
| CORPORATE OVERVIEW (25 Points) | ||||||
| (VII)(A)(1) | 50-52 | Financial Strength and Contract Performance | 0-12.5 | 0.00 | ||
| Financial Stability of the Organization and Contract Performance; The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder. | ||||||
| Corporate Experience | 0-10 | 0.00 | ||||
| Past Experience listed in the matrix for similar projects in size, scope and complexity; Ability, capacity, and stability of the bidder to deliver and implement the program requirements of the RFP. | ||||||
| Proposed Personnel/Management Approach, Resumes, and Subcontractors | 0-2.5 | 0.00 | ||||
| The proposed team being assigned to manage the State's project. Resumes outlining qualifications as key indicator to skill mixes and assessing experience of individuals. Examine information regarding utilization of subcontractors. | ||||||
| Corporate Overview Total | 0.00 | |||||
| RFP Section | RFP Ref | |||||
| Page / Attachment | RFP Scoring Requirements | Max Scoring | Evaluator Score | |||
| TECHNICAL RESPONSE (65 Points) | ||||||
| Understanding of the Project Requirements | ||||||
| (VI)(A)(4)(a) | Attachment 2 | |||||
| Functional Specifications | Quality and Completeness of Bidder's responses in their understanding and ability to meet the project requirements for each category (applicable to items a. thru j. below including Attachments 2 & 3) | |||||
| Functional Specifications (VI)(A)(3)(a) | 0-31 | 0.00 | ||||
| 1. General |
2. Users
3. System Admin
4. Audit logs
5. All Modules
6. All Vital Event Registration Modules
7. Order Managment Module
8. Reports
9. Integration
10. Analytics Tool
11. Help (VI)(A)(4)(b) Attachment 3 Technical Specifications
| Technical Specifications (VI)(A)(3)(b) | |||||
| Architecture | 0-3.25 | 0.00 | |||
| Ability to meet requirements as outlined in items ARCH-1 through ARCH-5 | |||||
| Security and Compliance | 0-3.25 | 0.00 | |||
| Ability to meet requirements as outlined in items SPC-1 through SPC-6 | |||||
| Database/Data Management | 0-3.25 | 0.00 | |||
| Ability to meet requirements as outlined in items DM-1 through DM-7 | |||||
| Operations Management | 0-3.25 | 0.00 | |||
| Ability to meet requirements as outlined in items OM-1 through OM-6 | |||||
| (VI)(A)(4)(c) thru (j) | 32-47 | Project Requirements (VI)(A)(3)(c-j) | 0-9.25 | 0.00 | |
| c. Project Initiation |
d. Design and Configuration
e. Development and Testing
f. Data Migration
g. Training
h. Implementation
i. Post-Implementation
j. Support, Maintenance, and Operations
| (VI)(B) | 47 | Proposed Development Approach | 0-6.5 | 0.00 |
| Score on quality of response to overall approach and methodology. | ||||
| (VI)(D) | 47-48 | Project Work Plan, Management, and Implementation | 0-1.25 | 0.00 |
| Score on Quality and completeness of response to providing effective proposed work plan, project planning and management. | ||||
| (VI)(E) | 48-49 | Deliverables and Due Dates | 0-4 | 0 |
| Confirmation on willingness and ability to provide deliverables and meet the requirements within the established timeframes. | ||||
| Technical Response Total | 0.00 | |||
| Cost Sheet (10 Points) | 0.00 |
| Total Points | 0-100 | 0.00 |
| Oral Interview | 0-10 | 0.00 |
Dhinesh Santhakumar: Please Enter values from 0-10, only if Oral Interviews are held.
NOTE: Leave this Cell Empty if no Oral Interviews are conducted.
Total with Oral Interview 0-110 0.00
| Corporate Overview and Technical Response: Total | 90.00 |
| Cost Sheet | 10.00 |
| Total Points | 100.00 |
| Oral Interviews | 10.00 |
| Total Points with Oral Interviews | 110.00 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .