Exhibit G - Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 55 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HHS0016853
- Issued by
- Travis County, Austin City, Texas
About this file
This is an Evaluation Tool document for RFO No. HHS0016853 issued by a state Health and Human Services (HHS) agency. The evaluation tool establishes the criteria and scoring methodology for assessing respondent proposals for services that include product support and maintenance, disaster recovery capabilities, licensing, and ULA exit processes.
The evaluation framework allocates scoring weights across three primary categories: Qualifications and Experience (20%), Narrative Proposal (40%), and Cost (40%), totaling 100 points. Within the Qualifications and Experience section, evaluators assess respondent qualifications and relevant experience at 10% each. The Narrative Proposal section comprises five subcriteria evaluating how respondents meet service objectives (15%), product support and maintenance (10%), disaster recovery (5%), licensing (5%), and ULA exit process requirements (5%). The Cost section evaluates the reasonableness of proposed costs (20%) and the total cost for the initial term (20%). Scoring uses a 10-point scale ranging from "Unacceptable" (scores 1-3) to "Exceptional" (score 10), with descriptive guidance provided for each score level. The tool does not specify contract term length, renewal options, response deadlines, or other procurement timeline details within this exhibit.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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 how the Respondent's Proposal demonstrates the qualifications necessary to successfully meet the requirements within the RFO. 10%
1.2 Evaluate the Respondent's experience in providing services similar to the requirements listed in the RFO. 10%
20%
2.1 Evaluate how the Respondent meets the objectives and criteria of Services to be provided in accordance with the requirements of this RFO. 15%
2.2 Evaluate how the Respondent meets the Product support and maintenance objectives and criteria of this RFO 10%
2.3 Evaluate how the Respondent meets the products disaster recovery objectives and criteria of this RFO. 5%
2.4 Evaluate how the Respondent meets the licensing objectives and criteria of this RFO. 5%
2.5 Evaluate how the Respondent meets ULA exit process objectives and criteria of this RFO. 5%
40%
3.1 Evaluate the reasonableness of the Respondent's proposed cost. 20%
3.2 Evaluate the Respondent's Total Cost for Initial Term. 20%
40% 100%
Subtotal
TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
RFO No. HHS0016853 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool
Cost
Qualifications and Experience
Narrative Proposal
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, Evaluation Tool RFO No. HHS0016853
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 Qualifications and Experience 20% 2 Narrative Proposal 40% 3 Cost 40%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit G, Evaluation Tool RFO No. HHS0016853
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 .