Exhibit N, Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 55 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HHS0016585v2
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
This is an evaluation tool document for RFO No. HHS0016585v2, a Texas state health and human services contract opportunity for LabWare Maintenance & Operations and Texas Laboratory Online (TLO) Integration services. The evaluation tool establishes a comprehensive scoring framework with four primary criteria categories: Narrative Proposal (20% weight), Qualifications and Experience (35% weight), Technical Proposal (15% weight), and Cost (30% weight), totaling 100% of the evaluation score. Each criterion contains specific subcriteria that evaluators must assess, including the respondent's project work plan and proposed processes, key staffing qualifications and resumes, proposed technical solution, reasonableness of costs, and total cost for the initial term and optional extension terms.
The evaluation scoring guide utilizes a ten-point scale ranging from unacceptable (scores 1-3) to exceptional (score 10), with detailed descriptions for each scoring level. Scores of 1-3 indicate unacceptable responses that either fail to address requirements or are completely unacceptable; scores 4-6 represent marginal responses that fail to meet standards but contain correctable deficiencies or implementation challenges; scores 7-9 are acceptable responses that clearly satisfy requirements with varying degrees of minor weaknesses; and a score of 10 indicates exceptional responses that far exceed all requirement aspects. The document provides evaluators with a master score sheet template and specific guidance for assessing whether responses allow the agency to fulfill its mission and can be reasonably implemented with or without modifications by respondents.
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 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. HHS0016585v2 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. HHS0016585v2 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. HHS0016585v2
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 .