Exhibit L, Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 54 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Service Desk and Deskside Support Services
- Solicitation number
- HHS0017021
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
This is an Evaluation Tool document (Exhibit L) for RFO No. HHS0017021, a managed IT staffing services contract opportunity with a state health and human services agency. The solicitation seeks managed IT staffing services comparable in size, scope, and complexity to the agency's requirements. The evaluation process employs a best value approach with three primary scoring categories: Experience (35% weight), Narrative Proposal (30% weight), and Cost (35% weight). Within the Experience category, evaluators assess respondents' demonstrated experience delivering comparable managed IT staffing services and the qualifications of proposed key personnel. The Narrative Proposal section evaluates the executive summary's demonstration of understanding the solicitation's goals and objectives, as well as the overall proposal narrative's alignment with stated requirements.
The evaluation utilizes a 10-point scoring scale ranging from 1 (Unacceptable—response does not address requirement or is completely unacceptable) to 10 (Exceptional—response far exceeds all aspects of requirement). Scores 2-3 indicate unacceptable responses with varying degrees of deficiency, scores 4-6 represent marginal responses that fail to meet evaluation standards but contain correctable failures, and scores 7-9 represent acceptable responses with varying levels of compliance and benefits. The Cost evaluation component assesses the reasonableness of proposed costs and the total cost for the initial term and optional extension terms. The evaluation tool provides evaluators with detailed scoring descriptions to ensure consistent and objective assessment across all respondent proposals.
View the file
Other files
Show all 31
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 extent to which the Respondent demonstrates experience delivering managed IT staffing Services comparable in size, scope, and complexity to the Services requested in the Solicitation.
20%
1.2 Evaluate the qualifications and experience of the Respondent's proposed Key Personnel Staff in relation to the Services required under the Solicitation. 15%
35%
2.1 Evaluate the extent to which the Respondent's Executive Summary demonstrates an understanding of the goals and objectives of the Solicitation. 15%
2.2 Evaluate the Respondent's Narrative Proposal against the requirements outlined in the Solicitation. 15%
30%
3.1 Evaluate the reasonableness of the Respondent's proposed cost in accordance with the requirements of the Solicitation. 20%
3.2 Evaluate the Respondent's proposed total cost for the initial term and optional extension terms. 15%
35% 100%
RFO No. HHS0017021 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit L, Evaluation Tool
Cost (35%)
Experience (35%)
Narrative Proposal (30%)
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 L, Evaluation Tool RFO No. HHS0017021
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 Experience 35% 2 Narrative Proposal 30% 3 Cost 35%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit L, Evaluation Tool RFO No. HHS0017021
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 .