DCF RFP 2122 044 Suicide Prevention_Programmatic Evaluation Manual v1.pdf

Effective Date: July 31, 2020

(PMT-22-2021)

State of Florida Department of Children and Families

DCF RFP 2122 044

Suicide Prevention

Programmatic Evaluation Manual

Evaluator Name: __________________________________

Vendor Name: __________________________________

Date of Response Evaluation: __________________________________

Evaluator Signature: __________________________________

1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 Each programmatic evaluator will evaluate the programmatic 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 programmatic 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.

1.4 Each evaluator has been provided a copy of the RFP, including its appendices, any RFP addenda, and vendor written inquiries and the written responses provided by the Department. Each evaluator will also be provided with a copy of each programmatic 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 programmatic response, the scores are then submitted to the Procurement Officer for compilation. The Procurement Officer will average the total programmatic point scores by each evaluator to calculate the points awarded for each section along with the financial scoring for each vendor. Financial scoring is conducted by either financial evaluators or a formula. 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 and 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

3 PROGRAMMATIC RESPONSE POINT VALUES

The maximum score for the Programmatic Response is 825 points.

Criteria Relative

Value Possible Points

Points Assigned

Criteria 1: Executive Overview 18% 125

Criteria 2: Core Team Qualifications 15% 150

Criteria 3: Services Approach and Solution 67% 550

Total 100% 825

Evaluation Criteria 1: Executive Overview

Criteria: The vendor’s company structure, subcontractors, and experience and capability to deliver its proposed solution including the vendor performance providing services similar to the one specified in this solicitation.

Provide a brief executive overview demonstrating an understanding of the solicitation purpose and the needs specified in this solicitation. The Executive Overview includes a brief description of the vendor’s organization, leadership credentials, approach for Scope of Work services, management of Performance Specifications, and means of completing Deliverables.

Section Considerations Maximum Possible Points

Points Awarded

4.2.4.1.1

1. To what extent does the proposal describe vendor’s approach and philosophy, including mission statement, core values, and vision?

The proposal should demonstrate an organizational philosophy that aligns with the Department’s mission and the goals of the project and this solicitation.

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

4.2.4.1.2

2. To what extent does the proposal describe vendor’s organization and governance structure?

The proposal should demonstrate clear lines of authority including corporate affiliations and a lean, efficient, and effective administrative model.

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

4.2.4.1.3

3. To what extent does the proposal describe the vendor’s experience providing services similar to the specifications of this solicitation?

The proposal must demonstrate the vendor has at least 5 years’ experience and specific examples of other projects similar in scope and size of the specifications of the solicitations, specifically with an organization similar to the Department.

(Superior 61-75; Good 46-60; Adequate 31-45; Poor 16-30; Insufficient 0-15)

Total: 125

Evaluation Criteria 2: Core Team Qualifications

Criteria: The skills and experience of the vendor’s leadership team, staff, and resources the vendor will use in implementing its solution.

Section Considerations Maximum Possible Points

Points Awarded

4.2.5.1

1. To what extent does the proposal describe the qualifications and credentials of the vendor’s leadership team?

The proposal should demonstrate why the leadership team is qualified to lead their organization in meeting the needs of this RFP, specifically working with implementation of the proposed evidence-based suicide prevention model.

The proposal may include résumés for key leadership personnel that demonstrate sufficient work experience, education, and training as it relates to the requirements of this solicitation.

(Superior 81-100; Good 61-80; Adequate 41-60; Poor 21-40; Insufficient 0-20)

4.2.5.2

2. To what extent does the proposal describe the vendor’s operational approach to the recruitment, training, supervision, and retention of qualified personnel as described in this RFP?

The proposal should demonstrate how the vendor and any subcontractors will address staffing requirements in a manner likely to best meet the standards required to perform properly.

(Superior 41-50; Good 31-40; Adequate 21-30; Poor 11-20; Insufficient 0-10)

Total: 150

Evaluation Criteria 3: Services Approach and Solution

Describe the vendor’s approach to carrying out the tasks specified in the Standard Contract Part 2 (Appendix IX), Exhibit C.

Section Considerations Maximum Possible Points

Points Awarded

4.2.6.1

1. To what extent does the proposal describe the proposed safer suicide care model?

The proposal must include a thorough description of the proposed model, including citations demonstrating the model as an effective, evidence-based approach, valid reasoning for the selection of the proposed model for implementation with the Department and documentation demonstrating the model meets or exceeds the recommendations set forth by the U.S.

Surgeon General’s Call to Action.

The proposal should demonstrate the vendor’s experience with implementing the proposed model with an organization similar to the Department and the sustainability of the model.

(Superior 162-200; Good 122-161; Adequate 82-121; Poor 42-81; Insufficient 0-41)

4.2.6.2 and

Exhibit C

– Task List, Section C-1.1

2. To what extent does the proposal describe the vendor’s approach to conducting needs assessment and workplan development?

The proposal should demonstrate the provider’s ability to evaluate and determine the needs of the Department, including workshop topics, Department personnel required and strategies to engage staff and maximize attendance.

(Superior 41-50; Good 31-40; Adequate 21-30; Poor 11-20; Insufficient 0-10)

4.2.6.3 and

Exhibit C

– Task List, Section C-1.2.

3. To what extent does the proposal address the vendor’s approach to conducting effective workshops?

The proposal should demonstrate a comprehensive approach to conducting workshops including the manner in which workshops will be conducted.

The proposal should demonstrate a reasoned approach to assisting the Department with development of an organization-wide safer suicide care protocol, including a sustainable approach to incorporating tools and strategies into resources for Department staff.

The proposal should demonstrate the vendor’s ability to coordinate the logistics necessary for successful workshops, including registration, attendance, speakers and materials.

The proposal should demonstrate the vendor’s ability to administer evaluations, collect and analyze feedback and communicate recommendations to the Department.

(Superior 162-200; Good 122-161; Adequate 82-121; Poor 42-81; Insufficient 0-41)

4.2.6.4 and

Exhibit C

– Task List, Section C-1.3

4. To what extent does the proposal demonstrate the vendor’s approach to providing technical assistance to the Department to ensure effective and appropriate implementation of the proposed safer suicide care model?

The proposal should demonstrate how and in what manner the vendor will be available to the Department for technical assistance throughout the duration of the contract.

(Superior 81-100; Good 61-80; Adequate 41-60; Poor 21-40; Insufficient 0-20)

Total 550