Exhibit G - Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Conference Planning and Coordination Services
- Solicitation number
- HHS0014929
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
This evaluation tool document, developed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), establishes the scoring framework for assessing proposals submitted in response to RFP No. HHS0014929 for Conference Planning and Coordination Services. The solicitation seeks a contractor to design, plan, and execute an annual two-day statewide training conference for the Council on Sex Offender Treatment (CSOT) accommodating up to 450 guests in either in-person or virtual formats. Primary deliverables include venue selection, speaker coordination, registration management, continuing education unit (CEU) administration, website development and maintenance, and comprehensive event logistics. Proposals are due by December 20, 2025, at 10:30 AM Central Time, with an anticipated contract start date of May 2025. The initial contract term spans three years with two optional one-year extensions and potential additional monthly extensions up to 12 months for transition purposes.
The evaluation criteria allocate 30 percent weight to Experience and Demonstrated Ability, 50 percent to the Respondent's Proposed Project Work Plan, and 20 percent to Cost Proposal, for a total of 100 percent. Scoring utilizes a ten-point scale ranging from unacceptable (scores 1-3) through marginal (scores 4-6), acceptable (scores 7-9), and exceptional (score 10). The contract structure operates as a zero-dollar agreement, with the contractor generating revenue exclusively through conference registration fees and booth or exhibit sales. Minimum qualifications require three years of experience in training coordination and conference management, and respondents must submit a HUB Subcontracting Plan and provide three years of financial statements (2021-2023) to demonstrate financial solvency. The contractor may be reimbursed for HHSC employee and CSOT council member travel, lodging, and related expenses subject to prior HHSC approval.
View the file
Other files
Show all 29
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 experience in providing conference and training events similar in scope and size to the requirements in this Solicitation. 15%
1.2 Evaluate the Respondent's demonstrated ability to provide services that meet the requirements of the Solicitation. 15%
30%
2.1 Evaluate the Respondent’s proposed approach to meeting Conference goals to include CEU training. 15%
2.2 Evaluate the Respondent’s proposed Conference plans to include logistics for in-person and virtual Conferences, registration, speakers, materials and presentations.
20%
2.3
Evaluate the Respondent’s approach to website administration and maintenance in relation to database management, public-facing website, payment system, email informational and registration capabilities and the ability to meet the Solicitation technical requirements to include system performance monitoring.
15%
50%
3.1 Evaluate the reasonableness of the Respondent's cost including breakdown to complete each task to accomplish the Conference event in addition to cost per attendee in-person and virtually.
20%
20%
100%TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
RFP No. HHS0014929 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit G, Conference Planning Evaluation Tool
Cost Proposal
Experience and Demonstrated Ability
Project Work Plan
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 G, Conference Planning Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0014929
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 Experience and Demonstrated Ability 30% 2 Project Work Plan 50% 3 Cost Proposal 20%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit G, Conference Planning Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0014929
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 .