Award Recommendation for DMHA Medical Director (RFP 26-86283)

Review Criteria:

• Adherence to Mandatory Requirements
• Management Assessment/Quality (Business and Technical Proposal)
• Cost Proposal
• Buy Indiana
• MBE Subcontractor Commitment
• WBE Subcontractor Commitment
• IVOSB Subcontractor Commitment
• Evaluation Criteria”) of the RFP. Scoring was completed as follows: A. Adherence to Requirements Each proposal was reviewed for responsiveness and adherence to mandatory requirements. The one proposal was deemed responsive and adhered to the mandatory requirements. No proposals were disqualified. 1
• B. Management Assessment/Quality: Initial Scoring The Respondents’ proposals were each evaluated based on their respective Business Proposal and Technical Proposal. Business Proposal For the Business Proposal evaluation, the evaluation team considered the information the Respondent provided in the Business Proposal. These areas were reviewed to assess the Respondent’s ability to serve the State:
• Company Financials
• Experience Serving State Governments
• References Technical Proposal For the Technical Proposal evaluation, the evaluation team considered the Respondent’s proposal in the following areas:
• Duties
• Minimum Requirements
• Past Experience
• Substantiated Sanctions
• Committees
• Serving Similar Clients The evaluation team’s Round 1 scoring is based on a review of the Respondent’s proposed approach to each section of the Business Proposal and Technical Proposal. The evaluation team issued MAQ and Cost Clarifications to all Respondents prior to finalizing Round 1 scores. The initial results of the Management Assessment/Quality Evaluation are shown below: Table 1: Round 1 – Management Assessment/Quality Scores MAQ Score Respondent 50 pts. IU 26.25 C. Cost Proposal (30 Points) The price points on the Respondent’s Costs were awarded as follows:
• If Respondent’s Cost amount is lowest among all Respondents, then score is 30. (Lowest Respondent’s TPC) Score =
• If Respondent’s Cost amount is NOT lowest among all Respondents, then score is: 30 * (Lowest Respondent’s Cost Amount) . (Respondent’s Cost Amount) The cost scoring as a result of the Respondents’ cost proposals is as follows: Table 2: Round 1 – Cost Scores Cost Score Respondent 30 pts. IU 30.00 D. First Round Total Scores and Shortlisting 2