Exhibit Q, Evaluation Tool.pdf
PDF 55 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Document Processing Services
- Solicitation number
- HHS0015252
- Issued by
- Travis County, Austin City, Texas
About this file
This is an evaluation tool exhibit for an RFP issued by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) for Document Processing Services. The evaluation tool establishes a three-category scoring framework weighted at 35% for Qualifications and Experience, 35% for Narrative Proposal, and 30% for Cost, totaling 100 points. Within Qualifications and Experience, evaluators assess the Executive Summary's demonstration of understanding HHSC goals (30%) and Key Personnel experience on similar projects (5%). The Narrative Proposal category evaluates the Project Work Plan's ability to meet solicitation requirements (25%) and the Risk Management, Disaster Recovery, Business Continuity, Transition, and Communication Plans (10%). The Cost category comprises evaluation of total pricing for the initial contract term and optional extensions (15%) and the reasonableness of proposed pricing and cost allocations (15%). Responses are scored on a 10-point scale ranging from "Unacceptable" (scores 1-3) to "Exceptional" (score 10), with detailed descriptions for each level to guide consistent evaluation.
The scoring guide provides specific criteria for evaluating each point level, distinguishing between responses that fail to address requirements, are completely unacceptable, mention but are not responsive to requirements, address requirements with minor implementation concerns, clearly satisfy requirements with minor weaknesses, clearly satisfy requirements, or far exceed all aspects of requirements. This evaluation framework allows the HHSC to select the best value respondent based on a comprehensive assessment of organizational qualifications, technical approach, and cost-effectiveness for the document processing services contract, which is anticipated to support public assistance programs including CHIP, Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF through the Texas Integrated Eligibility and Redesign System (TIERS).
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
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 Executive Summary demonstrates an understanding of HHSC goals and objectives. 30%
1.2 Evaluate the experience of Respondent’s Key Personnel working on projects similar in size and scope to this Solicitation. 5%
35%
2.1 Evaluate the extent to which the Respondent's Project Work Plan demonstrates the Respondent's ability to meet the requirements of the Solicitation.
25%
2.2
Evaluate the extent to which the Respondent's Risk Management and Issue Resolution Plans, Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plan, Transition Plan, and Communication and Coordination Plan demonstrate the ability to meet the requirements of the Solicitation.
10%
35%
3.1 Evaluate the Total Cost for the Initial Contract Term and Optional Extension Term. 15%
3.2 Evaluate the reasonableness of Respondent's proposed pricing and cost allocations. 15%
30%
100%TOTAL (%)
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
RFP No. HHS0015252 Criteria, Subcriteria Sheet
Exhibit Q, Evaluation Tool
Cost
Qualifications and Experience
Narrative Proposal
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 Q, Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0015252
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 Qualifications and Experience 35% 2 Narrative Proposal 35% 3 Cost 30%
GRAND TOTAL 100%
Exhibit Q, Evaluation Tool RFP No. HHS0015252
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 .