Fin Eval Manual CBC.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Community-Based Care Lead Agency Circuit 6
- Solicitation number
- ITN-16526
- Issued by
- Leon County, Florida
About this file
This is a Financial Evaluation Manual for the Community-Based Care Lead Agency solicitation for Circuit 6, Pinellas and Pasco County, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Children and Families, Office of Child and Family Well-Being. The manual establishes the evaluation framework and scoring methodology that financial evaluators must apply when assessing vendor responses to this Foster Care and Related Services procurement. Evaluators are required to independently score financial responses based on two primary criteria: Financial Management (200 maximum points) and Budget (100 maximum points), for a combined financial evaluation maximum of 300 points. The evaluation process prohibits collaboration among evaluators and requires consistent application of scoring principles across all vendor responses.
Financial Management evaluation encompasses four assessment areas: demonstration of financial stability and capacity (80 points), sound financial management practices and public fund management (40 points), proposed service efficiencies and cost savings reinvestment (25 points), administrative cost reduction strategies (25 points), and ability to satisfy local match requirements (30 points). Budget evaluation covers five areas: reasonableness and allowability of the line-item budget (30 points), adequacy of budget narrative explanation and justification (30 points), appropriateness of the Cost Allocation Plan methodology (25 points), and overall alignment of the proposed budget with the vendor's technical approach and staffing plan (15 points). Evaluators must assign whole-number scores based on competency levels ranging from Exceptional (81-100 percent) to Insufficient (0-20 percent), and must document their scoring rationale in written notes that become public record.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| AddNo.01 DCF ITN 2526 082.pdf | ||
| CBC- SC Part 2 DCF ITN 2526 082.pdf | ||
| DCF ITN 2526 082.pdf | ||
| APPENDIX XI.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| AddNo.03 DCF ITN 2526 082.pdf | ||
| Standard Contract Part 1.pdf | ||
| Program Eval Manual CBC.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| APPENDIX XI (County).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| AddNo.02 DCF ITN 2526 082.pdf |
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
Instructions
| General Instructions |
| 1. Each financial evaluator will evaluate the Financial Response for Vendors deemed responsive. Each evaluation criterion must be scored. Fractional values will not be accepted. If an evaluator score sheet(s) is missing scores, it will be returned for completion. Scoring must reflect the evaluator’s independent evaluation of the Response to each evaluation criterion. |
| 2. Each evaluator shall assign a score for each evaluation criterion based upon his/her assessment of the reply. The assignment of an individual score must be based upon the following description of the point scores: |
| IF, in your judgment the reply demonstrates and/or describes… | Category | …assign points within ... |
| …extensive competency, proven capabilities, an outstanding approach to the subject area, innovative approaches, practical and effective solutions, a clear and complete understanding of inter-relationships, full responsiveness, a clear and comprehensive understanding of the requirements and planning for the unforeseen. | Exceptional | 81-100% of the maximum points for the area. |
| …clear competency, consistent capability, a reasoned approach to the subject area, feasible solutions, a generally clear and complete description of inter-relationships, extensive but incomplete and a sound understanding of the requirements. | Good | 61-80% of the maximum points for the area. |
| …fundamental competency, adequate capability, a basic approach to the subject area, apparently feasible but somewhat unclear solutions, a weak description of inter-relationships in some areas, partial responsiveness, a fair understanding of the requirements and a lack of staff experience and skills in some areas. | Adequate | 41-60% of the maximum points for the area. |
| …little competency, minimal capability, an inadequate approach to the subject area, infeasible and/or ineffective solutions, somewhat unclear, incomplete and /or non-responsive, a lack of understanding of the requirements and a lack of demonstrated experience and skills. | Poor | 21-40 %of the maximum points for the area. |
| …a significant or complete lack of understanding, an incomprehensible approach, a significant of complete lack of skill and experience and extensive non-responsiveness. | Insufficient | 0-20% of the maximum points for the area. |
| 3. Evaluators should also provide brief notes documenting the rationale for their scoring, as appropriate. Evaluators are not expected to document every item reviewed; rather, they should reference the key information that supports their evaluation. Notes should be clear, concise, and sufficient to explain the basis for the assigned score. If the Vendor's reply does not address an evaluation criterion, the evaluator should indicate "Not Addressed" and score the criterion accordingly. Reminder: Evaluator notes are Public Record. |
| 4. Each evaluator will be provided the documents necessary to conduct the evaluation, including the solicitation , as well as a copy of each Financial Response. Evaluators shall independently evaluate and score each Reply in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation and the instructions contained in this Evaluation Manual. |
| 5. Responses shall be independently scored by each evaluator. No collaboration is permitted during the scoring process. The same scoring principles must be applied to every Response received, independent of other evaluators. Evaluators should work carefully to be as thorough as possible. |
| 6. If any attempt is made to influence an evaluator, the evaluator must immediately report the incident to the Procurement Officer. If such an attempt is made by the Procurement Officer, the evaluator must immediately report the incident to the Procurement Officer and the Inspector General. |
| 7. After each evaluator has completed the independent evaluation of each Financial Response, the completed evaluation worksheets shall be submitted to the Procurement Officer for compilation. The average programmatic score will then be combined with the Vendor's financial score, as determined by the financial evaluator(s) or the applicable scoring methodology, to calculate the Vendor's total evaluation score. |
Vendor 1 DCF ITN 2526 082 - Community-Based Care Lead Agency Circuit 6, Pinellas and Pasco County
| FINANCIAL SCORING – CRITERIA 1: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT | ||||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | Evaluator Score | Evaluator Notes |
| 4.3.2.1 | How well does the Vendor demonstrate financial stability and the financial capacity necessary to successfully perform the resulting contract, including audited financial statements, independent audits, corrective actions, liquidity, operating capital, and overall financial condition? | 80 | ||
| 4.3.2.1 | How adequately does the Vendor demonstrate sound financial management practices, accounting systems, internal controls, and the ability to manage public funds in accordance with applicable state and federal requirements? | 40 | ||
| 4.3.2.2 | How adequately does the Vendor describe proposed service efficiencies and the planned reinvestment of resulting cost savings or additional resources into child welfare services? | 25 | ||
| 4.3.2.3 | How well does the Vendor describe its ongoing approach to reducing administrative costs while maintaining service quality, including minimizing administrative subcontracting where appropriate? | 25 | ||
| 4.3.2.4 | How adequately does the Vendor demonstrate its ability to satisfy local match requirements, including identification, documentation, and management of required matching funds? | 30 | ||
| CRITERIA 1 TOTAL | 200 |
| FINANCIAL SCORING – CRITERIA 2: BUDGET | ||||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | Evaluator Score | Evaluator Notes |
| 4.3.3.1 | How well does the proposed Line-Item Budget demonstrate a reasonable, complete, and allowable budget that supports successful contract performance and complies with applicable federal and state cost principles? | 30 | ||
| 4.3.3.2 | How adequately does the Budget Narrative explain and justify proposed expenditures, indirect costs, assumptions, methodologies, and use of contract funds? | 30 | ||
| 4.3.3.3 | How adequately does the Cost Allocation Plan demonstrate an appropriate methodology for allocating direct and indirect costs and compliance with Department and federal requirements? | 25 | ||
| 4.3.3 | Overall, how well does the proposed budget support the Vendor's technical approach, proposed staffing, service delivery model, and successful performance of the resulting contract? | 15 | ||
| CRITERIA 2 TOTAL | 100 |
| Criteria | Maximum Points | Evaluator Score |
| Criteria 1 - Financial Management | 200 | 0 |
| Criteria 2 - Budget | 100 | 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .