RFR Evaluation Tool.3.12.2024.docx

BIDDER:

CONTRACT: ☐ Central Mass Area ☐ Southeast Area ☐ Central Office Area

MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

RFR RESPONSE DUE DATE AND SUBMISSION FORMAT (Section 9):

☐ Submitted on COMMBUYS ☐ The File Naming Conventions were used ☐ Response was received by the ☐ due date and ☐ time.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

A response must consist of the following parts:

SBPP Bidder: ☐ Yes ☐ No

☐ Program Response Form

☐ Proposal Attachments: ☐ Limited to List of Permitted Attachments ☐ Extra attachments included, but removed by DMH

☐ Example of Report(s)

BIDDER REQUIREMENTS (Section 4.2 of the RFR/Question 3 on Program Proposal Form)

Experience: ☐A Bidder must have a minimum of three (3) years of continuous experience providing Medical Equipment Inspections, Inventory Services, Preventative Maintenance, and Repair Services proposed in this RFR or similar in concept to the Services described in the RFR.

Sound Fiscal Condition: ☐ Yes ☐ No Reason(s):

Solvency and Tax compliance:

☐Bidders/Contractors must not have been in bankruptcy and/or receivership within the last three (3) calendar years.

☐Bidders/Contractors must have and maintain sufficient reserves to fulfill the requirements of this RFR.

☐Bidders/Contractors must be in good standing with the Internal Revenue Service and all applicable state tax authorities.

Debarment: ☐ Yes ☐ No Reason(s):

FINDINGS

Minimum Requirements ☐ MET ☐ NOT MET Explain:

Reviewer(s):

Date:

Comments:

List Input received from others and staple to this tool:

Action taken by Review Committee/Awarding Authority as a result of Minimum Submission Requirements Review:

☐ Determined “qualified” for further review ☐ Clarification sought ☐ Rejected

If a Proposal is determined “qualified” for further Review, the Review Committee should continue to complete this Worksheet.

REVIEW COMMITTEE

Chair:

Members:

Responses to be reviewed (Please state in order of review - the order should be determined by random selection out of a hat):

1.

3.

2.

4.

Date(s) of Review:

The Response will be divided into three (3) Parts for Review: (1) The Program Proposal; (2) Cost Proposal and (3) the Supplier Diversity Plan (Supplier Diversity Plan). Each of these Parts will be evaluated separately and scored based on the criteria and points assigned to each Part as provided in this Evaluation Tool Worksheet. The scores of the three Parts will then be combined to give the Response an overall score.

To evaluate the Program Response the Program Response Requirements 1-20 have been clustered into four (4) Categories: (I) Bidder’s Background and Organizational Structure; (II) Service Requirements; (III) Data and Reporting Requirements, (IV) Cost. The first step of the review is to assign a score to each Category using the rating criteria and the points assigned to each rating criteria as defined in the Worksheet (it varies depending on the Category). The second step is to give the Program Proposal an overall score, which is the sum of the scores assigned to each of the four Categories.

Review/Ratings are to be done by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached on the rating of a particular Category or Part, then a vote will be necessary. Votes must be recorded. The Category/Part voted on must be stated and the vote for each member recorded. The majority vote of the committee present with a quorum (2/3 of the members) shall control.

An Evaluation Tool Worksheet must be completed for each Response that is determined to meet the minimum submission requirements. After the reviews are finished, the completed Evaluation Tool Worksheets and a recommendation for contract award shall be provided to the Awarding Authority. The recommendation shall include a list of the responses in order of priority for contract award and points for contract negotiations, when applicable.

PROGRAM RESPONSE REVIEW

Rating Criteria:

Excellent (E) – Exceptional. The proposal is strong, comprehensive, feasible, and appropriate. The information provided in the proposal addresses all elements of the applicable questions/requests for information that are being evaluated. The response clearly demonstrates that the Bidder intends to provide the services as required and that the Bidder has the understanding, capacity, and ability to do so. The response meets all applicable RFR requirements and exceeds many of the requirements as evidenced by identified strengths and/or meeting stated preferences. No weaknesses are identified. It demonstrates a full and comprehensive understanding of the services to be provided and the issues/barriers that a Contractor may need to address when providing services. It exceeds the needs of DMH.

Very Good (VG) – More Than Acceptable. The response is comprehensive, feasible, and appropriate. The information provided in the proposal addresses all elements of the applicable questions/requests for information that are being evaluated. The response clearly demonstrates that the Bidder intends to provide the services as required and that the Bidder has the understanding, capacity, and ability to do so. It satisfies all of the RFR requirements and exceeds some as evidenced by identified strengths and/or the meeting of stated preferences. No weaknesses are identified. It demonstrates a solid understanding of the services to be provided and the issues/barriers that a Contractor may need to address when providing services. It exceeds the needs of DMH.

Good (G) - Acceptable. The response is comprehensive, feasible, and appropriate. The information provided in the proposal addresses all elements of the questions/requests for information that are being evaluated. The response demonstrates that the Bidder intends to provide the applicable services as required and that the Bidder has the understanding, capacity, and ability to do so. The response meets all the applicable RFR requirements. Weaknesses if identified are minor. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the applicable services to be provided and the issues/barriers that a Contractor may need to address. It meets the needs of DMH.

Fair (F) – Minimally Acceptable/Incomplete. The response satisfies most, but not all, of the applicable RFR requirements. The information provided in the proposal does not address all of the elements of the questions/requests for information that are being evaluated or it is determined that one or more of the RFR requirements were not met. Weaknesses are identified; they may or may not be substantial. It does not fully meet the needs of DMH.

Poor (P) – Not Acceptable/Substantially Incomplete. The response does not satisfy most of the applicable RFR requirements. Weaknesses are identified and they are substantial. It does not meet the needs of DMH.

Part I: PROGRAM Response

☐Excellent (50), ☐Very Good (35), ☐Good (25), ☐Fair (15), ☐Poor (0)

Requested Information Review Committee may add additional items to consider with regard to the information requested.

Comments Strengths/Weaknesses/Other

1. Type of Organization

· Information completed

2. Overview of Bidder’s Business

a. Bidder’s business history

b. years in business

c. principal services offered

d. number of current customers and primary customers

e. licenses and certifications

f. awards and recognition in the last 3 years.

3. Experience

· Minimum of three (3) years of continuous experience providing Medical Equipment Inspections, Inventory Services, and Repair Services of the type/size proposed in the RFR or similar in concept. Preference will be given to Bidders with seven or more years of the desired experience.

· The Bidder must have the capacity to perform all RFR required functions and activities at the level necessary to meet the required service standards as of the anticipated Contract Start Date or the date specified in the Bidder’s Response if reasonable and agreed to by DMH.

4. Organizational Chart

· Organizational chart shows where the contract, awarded under this RFR, will fall with the bidding organization.

· Chart shows reporting lines and what service support it will get within the organization (HR, IT, Legal etc.…)

Preference will be given to Bidders that bid on ALL Contracts.

5. Litigation and findings of non-compliance

· Review of past and current findings of noncompliance and litigations.

· The bidder has a fiscal reserve or a line of credit that will support providing food services for 3 months or more pending payment by DMH.

6. References and Government Experience

· The bidder provided three professional references prepared to provide examples of similar or comparable services the bidder has provided in the last three years.

· Bidder indicated any Medical Equipment Inspections, Inventory Services, and Repair Services for which the Bidder has provided for a State of Federal Agency in the last three years.

· Bidder provided names and address of the applicable State or Federal agency(ies);

· Locations where services were provided.

· Brief description of the Services provided.

· Dates services were provided.

· The annual value of the contract.

7. Subcontracting

· Subcontracting, if any, as suggested appears reasonable.

☐Excellent (50), ☐Very Good (35), ☐Good (25), ☐Fair (15), ☐Poor (0)

Requested Information Review Committee may add additional items to consider with regard to the information requested.

Comments Strengths/Weaknesses/Other

8. Proposed Service Schedule

· Bidder described the proposed service schedule in detail and complies with the needs described in Section 4.2.1.

· Proposed service schedule demonstrated that inspection services provided will be in keeping with industry and regulatory standards.

· Risk assessment rationale for medical equipment is appropriate within the service schedule.

9. JCAHO Standards Bidder seems to be familiar with Joint Commission standards and regulations and agrees to represent the facility in accreditation evaluations if needed.

10. Training Availability Bidder will provide training as needed and respond to questions about medical equipment.

11. Warranty of Work Bidder agrees to warranty any repairs done to medical equipment. They agree to replace any item broken beyond repair at its current monetary value.

12. WRCH ONLY Dexis Agreement Bidder agrees to Dexis subcontract requirement. Cost proposal for this additional requirement is included.

☐Excellent (50), ☐Very Good (35), ☐Good (25), ☐Fair (15), ☐Poor (0)

Requested Information Review Committee may add additional items to consider with regard to the information requested.

Comments Strengths/Weaknesses/Other

13. Electronic Management System

· Bidder is able to provide an electronic information management system with 24/7 accessibility.

· Detailed history including dates of all PM and repairs for each piece of equipment will be available.

· A web request system will be available to create and track work orders for repair oversight and billing.

14. Reports Bidder will provide management reports as needed to include summaries of equipment problems and failures, failure rates, and maintenance completion.

Part II Cost Proposal Category IV: Cost

Rating (check one) ☐ Excellent (150), ☐ Very Good (105), ☐ Good (75), ☐ Fair (35), ☐ Poor (0)

Requested Information Review Committee may add additional items to consider with regard to the information requested.

Comments Strengths/Weaknesses/Other

15. Cost Sheets Bidder provided a Cost Sheet. Assess any alternative pricing plan.

· Travel costs should not be listed

· Are hourly rates listed for repairs?

· Are there mark-up pricing for parts needed for repairs?

· Do the costs seem reasonable with today’s standards?

· If applicable, does the alternative pricing plan meet our needs?

RFR Evaluation Tool Worksheet Request for Response for Medical Equipment Inspections, Inventory Services, and Repairs Date:

DMH Document Number: 2025-DMH-3134-01 Bidder:

DRAFT

Additional Comments, Points for Contract Negotiations, etc.:

Overall Response Rating

Tie: The first Response with the higher score in one of the following Parts/Categories in the following order: Cost Proposal; Category II of the Program Response, Category III of the Program Response, Category I of the Program Response, and Supplier Diversity.

Ranking of Responses