Exhibit L, Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TANF Analysis
- Solicitation number
- HHS0016822
- Issued by
- Travis County, Austin City, Texas
About this file
Exhibit L is an evaluation tool for RFP No. HHS0016822 issued by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) for financial analysis and compliance review services related to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The evaluation criteria are structured around three weighted categories: Proposed Work Plan (30%), Qualifications and Experience (40%), and Cost (30%), totaling 100 points. Key deliverables include a Project Work Plan due within 30 calendar days of contract execution, a Gap Assessment Memo due within 90 calendar days after Project Work Plan completion, a Summary of Recommendations due 30 days thereafter, monthly status reports due by the 15th of each month, and training materials due 90 days prior to contract expiration. The pre-proposal conference is scheduled for April 22, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time, with the proposal submission deadline of May 15, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. Central Time. The anticipated notice of award is June 2026, with a contract start date in August 2026. The initial contract term is one year, with HHSC holding the option to extend for up to two additional option periods.
The evaluation scoring guide uses a 10-point scale ranging from unacceptable (scores 1–3) to exceptional (score 10), with specific descriptors for each level defining whether responses meet, exceed, or fall short of requirements. Total compensation under any resulting contract shall not exceed $1,000,000, though HHSC reserves the right to increase this amount if additional state or federal funding becomes available during the contract term. The contractor is responsible for all labor, materials, equipment, travel expenses, and associated costs necessary to deliver specified services. Payment will be made within 30 days of receipt of correct invoices following satisfactory service delivery in accordance with the Texas Prompt Payment Act. The RFP document does not specify set-aside designations, incumbent vendors, or current contractors, and requires the contractor to meet performance standards including 95% on-time deliverable submission, no more than 5% material errors per deliverable, and responsiveness within one business day for communications.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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 proposed processes and methodologies for providing Services in accordance with the requirements of the SOW. 30%
30%
2.1 Evaluate the Respondent's demonstrated experience in providing Services in accordance with the requirements of the SOW. 20%
2.2 Evaluate the Respondent's qualifications that demonstrate the ability to meet the requirements of the SOW. 20%
40%
3.1 Evaluate the reasonableness of the Respondent's proposed cost. 15%
3.2 Evaluate the Respondent's proposed "Total Cost for the Initial Term and the Optional Extension Term". 15%
30%
100%TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
RFP No. HHS0016822 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit L, Evaluation Tool
Cost (30%)
Project Work Plan (30%)
Qualifications and Experience (40%)
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 L, Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0016822
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 Proposed Work Plan 30% 2 Qualifications and Experience 40% 3 Cost 30%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit L, Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0016822
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 .