Exhibit F, Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 59 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Federal Award Compliance Assessments (FACAs)
- Solicitation number
- HHS0017782
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
This evaluation tool document is part of RFQ No. HHS0017782 issued by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission for Federal Award Compliance Assessments (FACAs). The solicitation seeks qualified respondents to provide federal financial assessment services, training on federal compliance standards, and related consulting services to healthcare providers and healthcare-related entities. The evaluation tool establishes a best-value selection methodology with four primary scoring categories that collectively comprise 100 percent of the evaluation criteria.
The evaluation framework allocates 30 percent weight to respondent availability and capabilities on similar projects, including organizational qualifications and demonstrated experience with federal financial assessment services and government contracts. Staff experience and competence accounts for 20 percent of the evaluation score, while specialized expertise with healthcare providers and healthcare-related entities, particularly regarding 2 CFR Part 200 compliance and internal control assessments, comprises 15 percent. The project work plan and proposed approach to managing coordination with RTS Awardees constitutes the largest weighted component at 35 percent. Evaluators will assign scores on a 10-point scale ranging from unacceptable (scores 1-3) through marginal (scores 4-6) to acceptable (scores 7-9) and exceptional (score 10), with detailed scoring guidance provided to ensure consistent evaluation of respondent proposals against stated requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
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 Respondent's Statement of Qualifications and availability to undertake the Projects including Respondent's qualifications, key strengths, and competitive advantages.
5%
1.2 Evaluate Respondent's demonstrated experience in providing federal financial assessment services and training on past projects. 15%
1.3 Evaluate Respondent's demonstrated experience and successful performance on prior government or public-sector contracts. 5%
1.4 Evaluate Respondent's experience and capabilities in applying adult learning principles and developing curriculum and training on federal compliance standards.
5%
30%
2.1 Evaluate the relevant experience and competence of Respondent's key personnel. 20%
20%
3.1
Evaluate Respondent's specialized expertise in providing services related to federal compliance standards, 2 CFR Part 200, generally acceptable accounting practices, evaluating internal controls, assessing risks, and performing financial reviews for healthcare providers and health-care related entities.
5%
3.2 Evaluate Respondent's specialized expertise in developing curriculum and training on federal compliance standards for healthcare providers and healthcare related entities.
5%
3.3 Evaluate any specialized expertise of proposed key personnel providing the required Services for healthcare providers and health-care related entities.
5%
15%
4.1 Evaluate Respondent's proposed processes and methodologies for providing all components of the SOW as outlined in the Solicitation. 20%
4.2 Evaluate Respondent's proposed approach to managing and coordinating the Work with RTS Awardees. 15%
35%
100%TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal Project Work Plan
Subtotal
RFQ No. HHS0017782 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit F, Evaluation Tool
Specialized Expertise with Healthcare Providers and Health-Care Related Entities
Availability and Capabilities on Similar Projects
Staff Experience and Competence
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 F, Evaluation Tool RFQ No. HHS0017782
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 Availability and Capabilities on Similar Projects 30% 2 Staff Experience and Competence 20% 3 Specialized Expertise with Healthcare Providers and Health-Care Related Entities 15% 4 Project Work Plan 35%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit F, Evaluation Tool RFQ No. HHS0017782
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 .