Exhibit N, Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 55 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HHS0016585
- Issued by
- Travis County, Austin City, Texas
About this file
This is an evaluation tool document for RFO No. HHS0016585 issued by the Texas Health and Human Services (HHS) agency. The evaluation framework establishes a comprehensive scoring methodology for assessing respondent proposals across four primary categories: Narrative Proposal (20% weight), Qualifications and Experience (35% weight), Technical Proposal (15% weight), and Cost (30% weight), totaling 100% of the evaluation criteria. The Narrative Proposal section evaluates the respondent's project work plan, processes, and methodologies for delivering all Scope of Work components. The Qualifications and Experience category assesses both the respondent's general qualifications for providing the outlined services and the experience and profiles of key staff responsible for service delivery. The Technical Proposal criterion evaluates how the proposed technical solution supports all business activities and requirements identified in the RFO.
The Cost evaluation component addresses both the reasonableness of the proposed cost relative to requirements and the Total Cost for the Initial Term and any Optional Extension Terms. Scoring is conducted on a scale of 1 to 10, with scores ranging from "Unacceptable" (1-3) through "Marginal" (4-6) to "Acceptable" (7-9) and "Exceptional" (10). The evaluation guide provides detailed descriptions for each score level, enabling evaluators to assess whether responses fail to address requirements, meet fundamental requirements with necessary modifications, clearly satisfy requirements with minor weaknesses, or far exceed all aspects of requirements. This standardized evaluation tool ensures consistent and objective assessment of all proposals submitted in response to the RFO.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
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 project work plan that describes the proposed processes and methodologies for providing all components of the SOW in accordance with the RFO.
20%
20%
2.1 Evaluate the Respondent's qualifications in providing the Services outlined in the RFO. 20%
2.2 Evaluate the Respondent's experience, including key staffing profiles and resumes for all key staff who will be responsible for the performance of the Services outlined in the RFO.
15%
35%
3.1 Evaluate the Respondent's proposed technical solution that supports all business activities and requirements outlined in the RFO. 15%
15%
4.1 Evaluate the reasonableness of the Respondent's proposed cost and how it relates to the requirements outlined in the RFO. 15%
4.2 Evaluate the Respondent's Total Cost for the Initial Term and the Optional Extension Terms. 15%
30% 100%
RFO No. HHS0016585 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit N, Evaluation Tool
Technical Proposal (15%)
Narrative Proposal (20%)
Qualifications and Experience (35%)
Cost (30%)
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 N, Evaluation Tool RFO No. HHS0016585
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 Narrative Proposal (20%) 20% 2 Qualifications and Experience (35%) 35% 3 Technical Proposal (15%) 15% 4 Cost (30%) 30%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit N, Evaluation Tool RFO No. HHS0016585
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 .