Exhibit D , Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 55 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HHS0017298
- Issued by
- Travis County, Austin City, Texas
About this file
This is an Evaluation Tool document (Exhibit D) for RFQ No. HHS0017298 issued by the State of Texas for Outside Legal Counsel for Information Technology Matters. The evaluation framework establishes criteria and scoring methodologies for assessing respondent qualifications to provide legal support, advice, and services related to complex information technology and intellectual property law matters. The solicitation emphasizes experience with information technology compliance related to federal and state law, working with clients and vendors on sophisticated IT and IP legal issues, and demonstrated competence with similar matters involving state and federal agencies.
The evaluation tool employs a weighted scoring system across three primary categories: Organization Experience (30% weight), Staff Experience and Qualifications (45% weight), and Demonstrated Competence (25% weight), totaling 100 points. Specific evaluation subcriteria assess the respondent organization's IT and IP law experience, the Lead Attorney's specialized qualifications and experience, staff attorney qualifications, experience advising on complex IT legal matters including agreements, intellectual property, data privacy and security, artificial intelligence, dispute resolution, and risk management, and organizational competence with state and federal agencies. Scores range from 1 (unacceptable—response does not address requirement) to 10 (exceptional—response far exceeds all aspects of requirement), with defined performance levels including marginal (scores 4-6), acceptable (scores 7-9), and unacceptable categories (scores 1-3). The evaluation guide provides detailed scoring descriptors to standardize assessment across evaluators.
View the file
Other files
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
Evaluator Respondent
# Criteria Weight Score Comments
1.1
Evaluate the Respondent organization's experience providing legal support, advice and legal services, working with clients and vendors on complex information technology and intellectual property law related matters.
15%
1.2 Evaluate the Respondent organization’s experience with information technology compliance related to federal and state law matters. 15%
30%
2.1 Evaluate the Respondent designated Lead Attorney's specialized legal qualifications and experience with information technology and intellectual property law related matters.
10%
2.2 Evaluate the Respondent staff attorney qualifications and experience providing legal services for information technology law related matters. 10%
2.3
Evaluate the Respondent Lead Attorney qualifications experience in advising and representing clients on complex information technology legal matters, including but not limited to: agreements, intellectual property, data privacy and security, artificial intelligence, dispute resolution, and risk management.
15%
2.4 Evaluate the Respondent staff experience with information technology compliance related to federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. 10%
45%
3.1
Evaluate the Respondent organization's demonstrated competence, understanding, commitment, and experience assisting entities with similar complex legal matters involving information technology, including intellectual property, security, data privacy, artificial intelligence, and risk management.
15%
3.2 Evaluate the Respondent organization's demonstrated competence with similar matters with State and federal agencies. 10%
25%
100%TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
RFQ No. HHS0017298 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit D, Evaluation Tool
Demonstrated Competence
Organization Experience
Staff Experience and Qualifications
Version 1.6 September 2023 1 of 3
Score Level
Unacceptable 1
Unacceptable 2
Unacceptable 3
Marginal. Fails to meet evaluation standards but failures are correctable. 4
Marginal. Fails to meet evaluation standards but failures are correctable. 5
Marginal. Fails to meet evaluation standards but failures are correctable. 6
Acceptable 7
Acceptable 8
Acceptable 9
Exceptional 10
For the purposes of this exhibit, “the agency” means the contracting state agency as specified in the solicitation.
Response satisfies requirements and has some benefits above requirement.
Response far exceeds all aspects of requirement.
Response addresses requirement, but response described does not allow the agency to fulfill mission.
Response meets fundamental requirements, however could not be implemented as described (would require both the agency and Respondent to make significant changes not currently anticipated).
Response meets fundamental requirements, however could not be implemented as described (implementation would require both the agency and Respondent to make minor changes not currently anticipated).
Response meets fundamental requirements, however could not be implemented as described (implementation would require changes to be made by Respondent only).
Response clearly satisfies requirement but has some minor weaknesses.
Response clearly satisfies requirement.
Response mentions requirement, but is not responsive to the elements of the requirement.
Exhibit D, Evaluation Tool RFQ No. HHS0017298
Evaluation Scoring Guide
Description
Response does not address requirement. Response is completely unacceptable.
Version 1.6 September 2023 2 of 3
No. Best Value Criteria Weight 1 Organization Experience 30% 2 Staff Experience and Qualifications 45% 3 Demonstrated Competence 25%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit D, Evaluation Tool RFQ No. HHS0017298
Version 1.6 September 2023 3 of 3
| Master Score Sheet Template |
| Scoring Guide |
| Evaluation Criteria |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .