Exhibit G - Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 55 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Recovery Audit Contractor Services
- Solicitation number
- HHS0017023
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
Exhibit G is an evaluation tool for RFQ No. HHS0017023 issued by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission for Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Services. The evaluation tool establishes a scoring methodology with four primary criteria: Qualifications (30% weight), Experience (30% weight), Project Work Plan (20% weight), and Technical Proposal (20% weight), totaling 100 points. The Qualifications criterion assesses the respondent's ability to provide RAC Services as outlined in the Scope of Work. The Experience criterion evaluates demonstrated relevant experience in providing RAC Services and staffing profiles and resumes for all key personnel. The Project Work Plan criterion assesses proposed processes and methodologies for providing all required components, while the Technical Proposal criterion evaluates the respondent's proposed technical approach to providing an online portal solution.
The evaluation uses a 10-point scoring scale ranging from 1 (Unacceptable—response does not address requirement) to 10 (Exceptional—response far exceeds all aspects of requirement). Scores of 7, 8, or 9 are considered Acceptable, with descriptive differentiators: a score of 7 indicates the response clearly satisfies requirements but has minor weaknesses; a score of 8 indicates the response clearly satisfies requirements; and a score of 9 indicates the response satisfies requirements with benefits above the requirement. Scores of 4, 5, and 6 fall in the Marginal category, representing responses that fail to meet evaluation standards but with correctable failures. This best-value evaluation approach prioritizes qualifications and experience equally while considering implementation feasibility through the Project Work Plan and technical capability assessments.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
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's qualifications that demonstrate its ability to provide RAC Services as outlined in the SOW. 30%
30%
2.1 Evaluate the Respondent's demonstrated relevant experience in providing RAC Services as outlined in the SOW. 15%
2.2 Evaluate the Respondent's staffing profiles and resumes for all key personnel who will be responsible for the performance of the Services as outlined in the SOW.
15%
30%
3.1 Evaluate the Respondent's proposed processes and methodologies for providing all components of the requirements as outlined in the SOW. 20%
20%
4.1 Evaluate the Respondent's proposed technical approach to providing an online portal solution as outlined in the SOW. 20%
20% 100%
RFQ No. HHS0017023 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool
Project Work Plan (20%)
Qualifications (30%)
Experience (30%)
Technical Proposal (20%)
Subtotal
TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
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
Response mentions requirement, but is not responsive to the elements of the requirement.
Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool RFQ No. HHS0017023
Evaluation Scoring Guide
Description
Response does not address requirement. Response is completely unacceptable.
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.
Version 1.6 September 2023 2 of 3
No. Best Value Criteria Weight 1 Qualifications 30% 2 Experience 30% 3 Project Work Plan 20% 4 Technical Proposal 20%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool RFQ No. HHS0017023
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 .