Program Eval Manual CBC.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 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 Program Evaluation Manual for the Community-Based Care Lead Agency Circuit 6 contract opportunity 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 criteria for programmatic responses from vendors bidding to provide Foster Care and Related Services for Circuit 6, covering Pinellas and Pasco County. The evaluation process requires independent assessment of vendor responses across seven criteria: Executive Overview (150 maximum points), Core Team Qualifications (100 points), Services Approach and Solution—Safety Services (90 points), Services Approach and Solution—Judicial and Permanency Services (80 points), Services Approach and Solution—Well-Being Services (70 points), Management and Administrative Capacity (110 points), and Innovation (100 points), for a total of 700 programmatic points.
The scoring methodology uses five performance categories—Exceptional (81-100% of maximum points), Good (61-80%), Adequate (41-60%), Poor (21-40%), and Insufficient (0-20%)—with evaluators required to provide independent scores and brief notes documenting the rationale for each rating. Evaluators are prohibited from collaborating during scoring and must apply consistent scoring principles across all vendor responses. The evaluation manual specifies that vendors must address core competencies including mission and vision alignment, organizational governance and capacity, trauma-informed service delivery models, prevention and preservation services, judicial and permanency planning, recruitment and retention of foster and adoptive homes, quality assurance processes, and innovative approaches to service delivery. After individual evaluators complete their independent assessments, the Procurement Officer will calculate average programmatic scores for each vendor and combine those scores with financial evaluation scores to determine final vendor rankings.
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 | ||
| APPENDIX XI (County).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| AddNo.02 DCF ITN 2526 082.pdf | ||
| Fin Eval Manual CBC.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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 programmatic evaluator will evaluate the Programmatic 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 programmatic 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 programmatic reply, the completed evaluation worksheets shall be submitted to the Procurement Officer for compilation. The Procurement Officer will calculate the average of the total programmatic scores assigned by the evaluators for each Vendor. 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
| PROGRAMMATIC SCORING – CRITERIA 1: EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW | ||||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | Evaluator Score | Evaluator Notes |
| 4.2.4.1.1 | How well does the Vendor articulate its mission, vision, organizational philosophy, core values, and understanding of the Department's goals and priorities for child welfare services? | 38 | ||
| 4.2.4.1.2 | How adequately does the Vendor describe its governance and organizational structure, including lines of authority, corporate affiliations, fiduciary oversight, transparency, conflict-of-interest management, budget oversight, stakeholder engagement, board member onboarding, annual board training, and compliance with applicable statutory requirements? | 31 | ||
| 4.2.4.1.3 | How well does the Vendor demonstrate the organizational capacity, management structure, subcontractor relationships, and overall ability to successfully perform the Scope of Work, Performance Specifications, Deliverables, and other requirements of the resulting Contract? | 45 | ||
| 4.2.4.2 | Does the Vendor provide complete and sufficient corporate information, including organizational history, legal status, MFMP registration, affiliated entities, subcontractor information, and disclosure of prior contract terminations or other information relevant to responsibility? | 36 | ||
| CRITERIA 1 TOTAL | 150 | 0 |
| PROGRAMMATIC SCORING – CRITERIA 2: CORE TEAM QUALIFICATIONS | ||||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | Evaluator Score | Evaluator Notes |
| 4.2.5.1 | How well do the qualifications, education, certifications, experience, and demonstrated leadership abilities of the Vendor's executive leadership and key personnel support successful performance of the resulting contract? | 50 | ||
| 4.2.5.2 | How adequately does the Vendor describe its approach to recruiting, training, supervising, retaining, and supporting qualified personnel, including human resources, quality assurance, finance, information technology, and other professional support functions? | 50 | ||
| CRITERIA 2 TOTAL | 100 | |||
| PROGRAMMATIC SCORING – CRITERIA 3: SERVICES APPROACH & SOLUTION – SAFETY SERVICES | ||||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | Evaluator Score | Evaluator Notes |
| 4.2.6.1 | How well does the Vendor articulate an overall service delivery model aligned with the Department's priorities for Safety, Well-Being, Permanency, and Alignment? | 10 | ||
| 4.2.6.2 | How well does the Vendor adequately describe its trauma-informed, family-centered practice model, individualized service delivery approach, documentation practices, statewide child welfare information system requirements, and implementation of the Child Welfare Practice Model? | 10 | ||
| 4.2.6.3.1 | How adequate is the Vendor's response regarding Prevention Services, including Title IV-E Prevention Plan implementation, evidence-based practices, community partnerships, Hope Florida, Responsible Fatherhood, family engagement, and documentation requirements? | 15 | ||
| 4.2.6.3.2 | How adequate is the Vendor's response regarding Family Support Services, including referral management, assignment timeframes, Prevention Services Plans, family engagement, required contacts, service monitoring, and documentation? | 15 | ||
| 4.2.6.3.3 | How adequate is the Vendor's response regarding Safety Management Services, including Present Danger Safety Plans, referral processes, service categories, quality monitoring, and coordination with Child Protective Investigations? | 15 | ||
| 4.2.6.3.4 | How adequate is the Vendor's response regarding Family Preservation Services, including case assignment, case transfer, in-home engagement, case planning, safety management, required contacts, and documentation? | 15 | ||
| 4.2.6.3.5 | Does the Vendor clearly describe staffing, supervision, referral workflow, provider coordination, quality assurance, performance monitoring, and continuous improvement processes supporting all Safety Services? | 10 | ||
| CRITERIA 3 TOTAL | 90 | 0 |
| PROGRAMMATIC SCORING – CRITERIA 4: JUDICIAL & PERMANENCY SERVICES | |||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | Evaluator Score |
| 4.2.6.4 | How adequately does the Vendor articulate its approach to Judicial Services and Out-of-Home Case Management, including case assignment and transfer, trauma-informed practice, trauma screening and assessment, individualized case management, permanency planning, reunification planning, adoption planning, permanent guardianship planning, APPLA planning, family engagement, service coordination, timely access to services, interagency coordination, and documentation in the statewide child welfare information system? | 15 | |
| 4.2.6.5 | How adequate is the Vendor's response regarding Case Planning, Safety Planning, Staffings, and Multidisciplinary Coordination, including individualized case plans, safety plans, measurable behavioral change, multidisciplinary staffings, subject matter expert involvement, family engagement, leadership oversight, permanency decision-making, and documentation? | 15 | |
| 4.2.6.6 | How well does the Vendor describe its approach to Placement Services and the Placement Array and Services Plan, including family finding, placement stability, placement capacity, specialized placements, residential placement requirements, ICPC coordination, diligent search, placement quality reviews, caregiver support, and placement array planning? | 15 | |
| 4.2.6.7 | How adequately does the Vendor describe its Recruitment and Retention Plan for quality foster and adoptive homes, including recruitment strategies, retention strategies, placement forecasting, measurable recruitment goals, foster parent supports, adoptive home recruitment, utilization of data, and community partnerships? | 15 | |
| 4.2.6.8 | How adequate is the Vendor's response regarding Post-Judicial Services, including Post-Adoption Services and the Guardianship Assistance Program (GAP), post-adoption supports, adoption assistance activities, guardianship assistance administration, and ongoing permanency supports? | 20 | |
| CRITERIA 4 TOTAL | 80 | ||
| PROGRAMMATIC SCORING – CRITERIA 5: WELL-BEING SERVICES | |||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | |
| 4.2.6.9 | How adequately does the Vendor describe Stakeholder and Lived Experience Collaboration, including governance, feedback mechanisms, satisfaction surveys, and continuous quality improvement? | 12 | |
| 4.2.6.10 | How adequately does the Vendor describe Interagency and Community Collaboration, including community partnerships, Community Alliance participation, prevention planning, and coordination with partner agencies? | 11 | |
| 4.2.6.11 | How well does the Vendor articulate its approach to Education Services, educational stability, school readiness, and child well-being? | 12 | |
| 4.2.6.12 | How adequately does the Vendor describe Health Services, including behavioral health coordination, residential treatment oversight, and psychotropic medication review? | 12 | |
| 4.2.6.13 | How well does the Vendor articulate its approach to Transition Services for Youth and Young Adults? | 11 | |
| 4.2.6.14–4.2.6.15 | How adequately does the Vendor address Father Engagement and Early Childhood Courts? | 12 | |
| CRITERIA 5 TOTAL | 70 | ||
| PROGRAMMATIC SCORING – CRITERIA 6: MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY | |||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | |
| 4.2.6.16 | How adequate is the Vendor's response regarding Grievance Procedures and client responsiveness? | 10 | |
| 4.2.6.17 | How adequately does the Vendor describe its Quality Assurance and Continuous Quality Improvement program? | 20 | |
| 4.2.6.18 | How adequately does the Vendor describe General Systems, technology, CCWIS, financial accountability, transportation, federal funding oversight, and client services? | 18 | |
| 4.2.6.19 | How adequately does the Vendor describe Transition Planning and coordination with other providers and entities? | 10 | |
| 4.2.6.20 | How adequately does the Vendor describe Administrative Tasks, staffing, training, executive oversight, ethics, and workforce development? | 25 | |
| 4.2.6.21 | How adequately does the Vendor describe procurement, subcontract management, monitoring, accountability, conflict management, and subcontract oversight? | 17 | |
| CRITERIA 6 TOTAL | 100 | ||
| PROGRAMMATIC SCORING – CRITERIA 7: INNOVATION | |||
| Section Reference | Evaluation Question | Max Score | |
| 4.2.6.22 | How well does the Vendor articulate innovative approaches that improve service delivery, strengthen outcomes, enhance efficiency, leverage community partnerships, implement best or evidence-based practices, and provide additional value while remaining consistent with the required services described in Exhibit C? | 100 | |
| CRITERIA 7 TOTAL | 100 |
| Criteria | Maximum Points | Evaluator Score |
| Criteria 1 – Executive Overview | 150 | 0 |
| Criteria 2 – Core Team Qualifications | 100 | 0 |
| Criteria 3 – Services Approach and Solution – Safety Services | 90 | 0 |
| Criteria 4 – Services Approach and Solution – Judicial & Permanency Services | 80 | 0 |
| Criteria 5 – Services Approach and Solution – Well-Being Services | 70 | 0 |
| Criteria 6 – Services Approach and Solution – Management & Administrative Capacity | 110 | 0 |
| Criteria 7 – Innovation | 100 | 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .