Exhibit I - Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Video Directly Observed Therapy (“VDOT”)
- Solicitation number
- HHS0015558v2
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
This is an evaluation tool document for the Texas Health and Human Services (HHS) agency's Request for Offer (RFO) No. HHS0015558v2 for Video Directly Observed Therapy (VDOT) services. The evaluation tool establishes a best value procurement framework with three primary scoring categories weighted as follows: Relevant Experience at 30%, Narrative and Technical Proposal at 50%, and Cost at 20%, for a total evaluation weight of 100%. The Relevant Experience criterion evaluates the respondent's company information and demonstrated ability to meet RFO requirements. The Narrative and Technical Proposal section comprises multiple subcriteria including evaluation of the respondent's transition and turnover approach (10%), narrative proposal (20%), and technical proposal (20%). The Cost evaluation assesses both the reasonableness of the proposed cost and the total proposed cost for initial and optional extension terms (combined 20%).
The evaluation tool utilizes a 10-point scoring scale with defined performance levels ranging from 1 (Response does not address requirement—completely unacceptable) through 10 (Response far exceeds all aspects of requirement—exceptional). Intermediate scoring levels address acceptability, with scores 7-9 representing acceptable responses, scores 4-6 representing marginal responses with varying degrees of correctable deficiencies, and scores 1-3 representing unacceptable responses. The document provides detailed guidance for evaluators, including specific descriptions for each score level that clarify implementation feasibility and responsiveness to stated requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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 company information, relevant experience and how it demonstrates the Respondent's ability to meet the requirements of the RFO.
30%
30%
2.1 Evaluate Respondent's approach to Transition and Turnover as described in the RFO and how it demonstrates their ability to meet the requirements.
10%
2.2 Evaluate Respondent's narrative proposal and how it demonstrates their ability to meet the requirements of the RFO. 20%
2.3 Evaluate Respondent's technical proposal and how it demonstrates their ability to meet the requirements of the RFO. 20%
50%
3.1 Evaluate the reasonableness of Respondent's proposed cost. 10%
3.2 Evaluate Respondent's proposed Total Cost (Total Cost for Initial and Optional Extension Terms) 10%
20% 100%
Subtotal
TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
RFO No. HHS0015558v2 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit I, Video Direct Observational Therapy (VDOT) Evaluation Tool
Cost (20%)
Relevant Experience (30%)
Narrative and Technical Proposal (50%)
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 I, Video Direct Observational Therapy (VDOT) Evaluation Tool RFO No. HHS0015558v2 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 Relevant Experience (30%) 30% 2 Narrative and Technical Proposal (50%) 50% 3 Cost (20%) 20%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit I, Video Direct Observational Therapy (VDOT) Evaluation Tool RFO No. HHS0015558v2
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 .