OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS - Request for Proposals Scoring Sheet - Template - Updated 3.2026

Sep 12, 2026

Request for Proposals scoring sheet template for opioid settlement funds, structured to evaluate multiple vendors across 10 criteria. It provides 1–5 rating guidance (low to high) requiring specific reasoning with examples, including adherence to RFP instructions, organizational capacity, project comprehension, target population and geography, data supporting need, timeline, scope of work, measures of success, sustainability, and budget. Includes a weighted scoring table requiring total weight to equal 1.00.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryPresentations

FormatPDF

Pages3

Reading Time1 min

AccessFree to download

Criteria

Adherence to RFP Instructions

Organization Information & Description

Project Description

Population Served & Geographic Area

Data to Support Need

Timeline

Scope of Work

Measures of Success

Sustainability

Budget

Weighted Scoring

OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS-REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SCORING SHEET-MAC TEMPLATE CRITERIA *Adjust criteria to align with county-specific Request for Proposals (RFP) . Scores available from 1-5 (low to high) . Reasoning for scoring must be listed with specific examples. | 1. Adherence to RFP Instructions | As Measured By | VENDOR 1 | VENDOR 2 | VENDOR 3 | REASONING | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Timeliness | Submission by deadline | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Completeness | All fields and documents completed | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Overall Quality & Level of Professionalism | Articulation of all RFP requirements | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Overall Response | Comprehensivness of proposal | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Average Score | | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 2. Organization Information & Description | | VENDOR 1 | VENDOR 2 | VENDOR 3 | REASONING | | Experience with Subject Matter | Experts within organization, field of organization, impact of organization, etc. | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Organizational Structure | Capacity for project and appropriate support | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Partnerships/References | Existing collaboration | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Average Score | | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 3. Project Description | | VENDOR 1 | VENDOR 2 | VENDOR 3 | REASONING | | Overall Comprehension of Project Objectives | Clarity of goals and outcomes | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Completeness of Description | Level of detail | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Alignment with Exhibit E | Identified as allowable in link | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Focus on Those Profoundly Impacted | Lived experience, shared experience, marginalized population, etc. | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Viability of Project Objectives | Liklihood of completion with intended outcomes | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Average Score | | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 4. Population Served & Geographic Area | | VENDOR 1 | VENDOR 2 | VENDOR 3 | REASONING | | Appropriateness of Geographic Area | Focus on specific county | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Experience with Target Population | Demonstrated familiarity with population and associated needs | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Average Score | | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 5. Data to Support Need | | VENDOR 1 | VENDOR 2 | VENDOR 3 | REASONING | | Appropriateness of Data | Data illustrates specific need | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Accessibility of Data | Ease of access to data | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Data Collection Process | Comprehensiveness of process | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Demonstrated Need | Data highlights need | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Average Score | | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 6. Timeline | | VENDOR 1 | VENDOR 2 | VENDOR 3 | REASONING | | Appropriateness of Timeline | Alignment with funding period | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Feasibility of Timeline | Liklihood of completion within timeframe | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Average Score | | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 7. Scope of Work | | VENDOR 1 | VENDOR 2 | VENDOR 3 | REASONING | | Collaboration/Partnerships | Identification of partners and intention of collaboration | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Alignment with Exhibit E | Identified as allowable in link | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Focus on Those Profoundly Impacted | Lived experience, shared experience, marginalized population, etc. | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Flexibility | Ability to adapt to changing drug environment (new substances, policy changes, etc.) | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Feasibility | Liklihood of accomplishing specified activities and outcomes | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Alignment with County Priorities | Outline county priorities (equity, innovation, youth prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, etc. ) | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Alignment with Johns Hopkins Principles | Link | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Demonstrated Impact | Impact of program in previous years | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Appropriateness of Evidence Base | Identified and verified evidence base | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Average Score | | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 8. Measures of Success | | VENDOR 1 | VENDOR 2 | VENDOR 3 | REASONING | | Appropriateness of Measures | Meaningfulness of identified metrics | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | Data Collection Process | Ease of access and
comprehensiveness of pro

FAQs

How are vendor proposals scored in this template?

Each criterion is scored using a 1–5 scale (low to high). Reasoning must be documented with specific examples supporting the score.

What does the weighted scoring section require?

It assigns weights to criteria for each vendor’s weighted score. The template specifies that the total score/weight must equal 1.00.

Which major areas does the template evaluate?

It covers adherence to RFP instructions, organization capacity, project description and alignment, geographic and population focus, supporting data, timeline feasibility, scope of work, measures of success, sustainability, and budget appropriateness.

Sep 12, 2026

Upload by Alex Sinclair