DCF RFP 2122 044 Suicide Prevention_Financial Evaluation Manual.pdf

Effective July 31, 2020

(PMT-48-2021)

State of Florida Department of Children and Families

DCF RFP 2122 044

Suicide Prevention

Financial Evaluation Manual

Evaluator Name: __________________________________

Vendor Name: __________________________________

Date of Response Evaluation: __________________________________

Evaluator Signature: __________________________________

(PMT-48-2021) Page 1

1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 Each financial evaluator will evaluate the financial response for all vendor proposals that pass the mandatory criteria. Each evaluation criterion must be scored. Fractional values will not be accepted. If an evaluator score sheet(s) is missing scores, it will be returned for completion. Scoring must reflect the evaluator’s independent evaluation of the proposal to each evaluation criterion.

1.2 Each evaluator shall assign a score for each evaluation criterion based upon his/her assessment of the response. The assignment of an individual score must be based upon the following description of the point scores:

IF, in your judgment the response demonstrates and/or describes… Category …assign points within ...

…extensive competency, proven capabilities, an outstanding approach to the subject area, innovative, practical and effective solutions, a clear and complete understanding of inter-relationships, full responsiveness, a clear and comprehensive understanding of the requirements and planning for the unforeseen.

Superior 81-100% of the maximum points for the area.

…clear competency, consistent capability, a reasoned approach to the subject area, feasible solutions, a generally clear and complete description of inter-relationships, extensive but incomplete responsiveness and a sound understanding of the requirements.

Good 61-80% of the maximum points for the area.

…fundamental competency, adequate capability, a basic approach to the subject area, apparently feasible but somewhat unclear solutions, a weak description of inter-relationships in some areas, partial responsiveness, a fair understanding of the requirements and a lack of staff experience and skills in some areas.

Adequate 41-60% of the maximum points for the area.

…little competency, minimal capability, an inadequate approach to the subject area, infeasible and/or ineffective solutions, somewhat unclear, incomplete and /or non-responsive, a lack of understanding of the requirements and a lack of demonstrated experience and skills.

Poor 21-40 %of the maximum points for the area.

…a significant or complete lack of understanding, an incomprehensible approach, a significant of complete lack of skill and experience and extensive non-responsiveness.

Insufficient 0-20% of the maximum points for the area.

1.3 When completing score sheets financial evaluators should record references to the sections of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and the written response materials which most directly pertain to the criterion and upon which their scores were based. More than one section may be recorded. Evaluators should not attempt an exhaustive documentation of every bit of information considered but only key information. In general, the reference statements should be brief. If the response does not address an evaluation criterion, evaluators should indicate “not addressed” and score it accordingly.

(PMT-48-2021) Page 2

1.4 Each evaluator has been provided a copy of the RFP, including its appendices, any RFP amendments, and vendor written inquiries and the written responses provided by the Department. Each evaluator will also be provided with a copy of each financial response which should be evaluated and scored according to the instructions provided in the solicitation and the evaluation manual.

1.5 Replies shall be independently scored by each member of the evaluation team. No collaboration is permitted during the scoring process. The same scoring principles must be applied to every response received, independent of other evaluators. Evaluators should work carefully to be as thorough as possible in order to ensure a fair and open competitive procurement. No attempt by Department personnel or others, including other evaluators, to influence an evaluator’s scoring shall be tolerated.

1.6 If any attempt is made to influence an evaluator, the evaluator must immediately report the incident to the Procurement Officer. If such an attempt is made by the Procurement Officer, the evaluator must immediately report the incident to the Inspector General.

1.7 The Procurement Officer will conduct reference checks via telephone interviews.

1.8 Only the rating sheets provided should be used. No additional notes or marks should appear elsewhere in the evaluation manual.

1.9 Evaluators may request assistance in understanding evaluation criteria and replies only from the Procurement Officer and Subject Matter Experts via the Procurement Officer.

1.10 Questions related to the solicitation and the evaluations of the response should be directed only to:

Michele Staffieri, Procurement Officer michele.staffieri@myflfamilies.com

1.11 After each evaluator has completed the scoring of each financial response, the scores are then submitted to the Procurement Officer for compilation. The Procurement Officer will average the total financial point scores by each evaluator to calculate the points awarded for each section along with the programmatic scoring for each vendor. Programmatic scoring is conducted by programmatic evaluators. The two scores are added together with the highest scorer being awarded.

1.12 Following completion of the independent evaluations of the replies, the Procurement Officer will hold a meeting to validate evaluator scoring. The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that their individual evaluation scores were captured correctly when preparing the total scores.

2 QUALITATIVE CRITERIA

Evaluators shall assign scores to each of the replies received by the Department based on the following criteria:

Vendor’s articulation of their project approach and solution, and the ability of the approach and solution to meet the Department’s needs, the requirements of this RFP

The innovation of the approach and solution

Vendor references and track record implementing similar solutions to the one specified in this RFP

Experience and skills of proposed staff relative to the proposed approach and solution

(PMT-48-2021) Page 3

3 FINANCIAL RESPONSE POINT VALUES

The maximum score for the Financial Response is 250 points.

Criteria Relative

Value Possible Points

Points Assigned

Criteria 1: Financial Management 20% 50

Criteria 2: Budget Summary & Narrative 80% 200

TOTAL 100% 250

(PMT-48-2021) Page 4

Evaluation Criteria 1: Financial Management

Provide an overview of the vendor’s current financial management and accounting systems, any propose efficiencies and reinvestments.

Section Considerations Maximum Possible Points

Points Awarded

4.3.3

1. To what extent does the proposal describe the vendor’s current financial management and accounting systems?

The proposal should demonstrate management and accounting systems capable of tracking and reporting the expenditure of funds associated with the provision of services under the proposed contract.

(Superior 21-25; Good 16-20; Adequate 11-15; Poor 6-10; Insufficient 0-5)

4.3.3.2

2. To what extent does the proposal describe how the vendor plans to develop efficiencies in the services being provided?

The proposal should demonstrate any cost reductions or added services that are realized from these efficiencies and how they may be re-invested into the required services.

(Superior 21-25; Good 16-20; Adequate 11-15; Poor 6-10; Insufficient 0-5)

Total: 50

(PMT-48-2021) Page 5

Evaluation Criteria 2: Budget Summary & Narrative

Provide a line-item budget summary and narrative to demonstrate a summary of all proposed project costs for the entire proposed contract period and any potential renewals.

Section Considerations Maximum Possible Points

Points Awarded

4.3.4 4.3.5

1. To what extent does the proposal provide the proposed costs of the project?

The budget summary should demonstrate proposed costs are reasonable and justified with accurate calculations.

The budget narrative should demonstrate proposed costs that are allowable according to State purchasing standards.

The budget narrative should demonstrate proposed costs that are necessary for the delivery of the proposed services.

(Superior 161-200; Good 121-160; Adequate 81-120; Poor 41-80; Insufficient 0-40)

Total: 200