Exhibit N, Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 56 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HHS0016857
- Issued by
- Texas
About this file
This is an Evaluation Tool exhibit for the Independent Verification and Validation Services for Case Management Transformation contract opportunity in Texas. The document outlines the criteria and methodology for evaluating proposals submitted in response to this procurement. The evaluation tool establishes a scoring framework to assess bidder qualifications, proposed methodologies, technical approaches, and compliance with contract requirements. The evaluation process is designed to ensure objective comparison of all submissions against standardized criteria, enabling the state to select the most qualified vendor to provide independent verification and validation services for the case management transformation initiative.
The evaluation tool specifies weighted scoring categories that address vendor experience, team qualifications, understanding of scope requirements, and implementation approach. Evaluation criteria include demonstrated expertise in IV&V services, relevant case management system experience, quality assurance methodologies, and organizational capacity to support the engagement. The scoring mechanism allows evaluators to systematically rate proposals on defined dimensions, with point allocations reflecting the relative importance of each evaluation factor. This structured approach ensures transparent and consistent assessment of all bidders' capabilities to deliver the required verification and validation services for the state's case management transformation project.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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 executive summary and examples of past projects demonstrating its qualifications, capacity, and expertise. 20%
1.2 Evaluate Respondent's proposed key staffing profile and the demonstrated experience and capabilities of key staff. 10%
30%
2.1 Evaluate Respondent's proposed processes and methodologies for providing the components of the Scope of Work and its approach to meeting the Project Schedule.
10%
2.2 Evaluate Respondent's proposed methodology and approach for providing the Project Services. 10%
2.3 Evaluate Respondent's proposed methodology and approach for providing the Project Deliverables. 10%
2.4 Evaluate Respondent's proposed methodology and approach for meeting required progress reporting. 10%
2.5 Evaluate Respondent's proposed methodology and approach for meeting security requirements, and addressing and mitigating security breaches, including the details of any past data breaches.
10%
50%
3.1 Evaluate the reasonableness of Respondent's proposed pricing. 15%
3.2 Evaluate Respondent's proposed cost for Total Initial Term and Optional Extension Terms. 5%
20% 100%
DFPS Procurement No. HHS0016857 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit N, Evaluation Tool
Cost (20%)
Qualifications and Experience (30%)
Project Work Plan (50%)
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 DFPS Procurement No. HHS0016857
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 Qualifications and Experience 30% 2 Project Work Plan 50% 3 Cost 20%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit N, Evaluation Tool DFPS Procurement No. HHS0016857
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 .