5275 Summary Scores Round 1.pdf
PDF 98 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR WAGEMAN DAM
- Solicitation number
- S-69000-00002245
- Issued by
- Oregon
About this file
This file is a Round 1 evaluation summary scores document for a branding and communications services solicitation issued by the State of Oregon, specifically the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS). The evaluation assessed six competing proposals across eight weighted scoring categories totaling 180 possible points. The solicitation sought comprehensive branding services including development of an equitable, multilingual branding plan; evidence-based research and strategy; communications expertise for non-English speaking audiences; and implementation capabilities within a large government institution. Key evaluation criteria emphasized cultural competency, understanding of systemic oppression affecting Oregon's Protected Classes, inclusive leadership demonstrating race and intersectionality awareness, and demonstrated experience with rebranding in large organizations. The branding category carried the highest point value at 60 points, followed by equitable access and evidence-based research at 30 points each.
The evaluation results ranked proposers as follows: WeUsThemICG scored 171 points, Watson Creative scored 163 points, Innovare scored 150 points, Lara Media scored 133 points, Metropolitan Group scored 104 points, and Vive Northwest scored 60 points. Scoring disparities were most pronounced in the branding category, where WeUsThemICG achieved 50 points compared to Vive Northwest's 22 points. The file does not include information regarding contract award amounts, contract term, renewal options, set-asides, incumbent contractors, response deadlines, or funding sources, as this document represents only the evaluation summary scores from the first round of the proposal review process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Additional Project Information.docx | DOCX document | |
| Solicitation.zip | ZIP file |
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
5275 Round 1 Summary Scores
Category Criteria
5.3.1 Project Management (0 to 10 points)
How well does Proposer describe its project management during the development of a branding plan within a large organization?
7 6 9 7 8 6
5.3.2 Equitable Access (0 to 30 points)
How well does Proposer describe its plan for the development of a branding plan that is equitable, multilingual, and multifaceted?
(0 to 10 points) How well does Proposer describe its understanding of the systemic oppression that impacts Oregon’s Protected Classes?
(0 to 10 points) How well has Proposer demonstrated leadership that is inclusive of race and intersectionality?
(0 to 10 points)
19 22 22 22 13 3
5.3.3 Evidence-based Research (0 to 30 points)
How well does Proposer describe its understanding of evidence-based research?
(0 to 10 points) How well has Proposer demonstrated its understanding of ODHS’ users and audiences?
(0 to 10 points) How well has Proposer described how the evidence-based insights would be used to guide ODHS’ transformation?
(0 to 10 points)
18 23 25 20 15 8
5.3.4 Communications to Non-English Speaking Audiences (0 to 20 points)
How well does Proposer describe its communication experience with non-English speaking audiences?
(0 to 10 points) How well does Proposer demonstrate it capacity for communication review, creation, transcreation, localization, and glossary maintenance?
(0 to 10 points)
12 19 14 17 8 3
5.3.5 Strategy Implementation (0 to 20 points)
How well does Proposer describe its fundamental considerations for implementing strategies within a dominant culture institution?
(0 to 10 points) How well does Proposer’s description demonstrate its ability to implement strategies in a diverse cultural and linguistic environment?
(0 to 10 points)
10 14 18 14 10 4
Watson Creative
WeUsThem Average Points by Category from Evaluator Criteria Points
ICG
Innovare
Lara Media Metropolitan Group
Vive Northwest
5275 Round 1 Summary Scores Page 1
5275 Round 1 Summary Scores
Category Criteria Watson Creative
WeUsThemICG Innovare
Lara Media Metropolitan Group
Vive Northwest
5.3.6 Branding (0 to 60 points)
How well does Proposer describe its experience with rebranding in large organizations? (0 to 10 points) How well does Proposer’s campaign example demonstrate Proposer’s ability to successfully complete a branding plan for ODHS? (0 to 10 points) How well does Proposer’s process to assess and evaluate brand value meet the needs of ODHS? (0 to 10 points) How well do Proposer strategies and methods to improve brand equity meet ODHS’ needs? (0 to 10 points) How well has Proposer demonstrated its knowledge of the deliverables, systems, methods, and tools required to help ODHS improve and maintain a long-term positive brand equity? (0 to 10 points) How well does Proposer describe the methods for measuring, reporting, and evaluating success? (0 to 10 points)
40 48 50 41 31 22
5.3.7 Outsourcing or Subcontractors (0 to 20 points)
How well does Proposer describe its experience outsourcing or subcontracting work?
(0 to 10 points) How well has Proposer demonstrated its capability to ensure the subcontractors’ work focuses on culturally and linguistically diverse audiences and uses evidence-based practices?
(0 to 10 points)
12 14 14 11 10 2
5.3.8 Key Persons (0 to 20 points)
How well does Proposer describe the Key Persons’ qualifications for developing and implementing culturally specific and responsive communication and branding strategies and plans?
(0 to 10 points) How well do the Key Persons’ qualifications demonstrate Proposer’s understanding of communication and branding strategies and plans that are equitable, multilingual, and multi-faceted?
(0 to 10 points)
15 18 18 17 11 13
Total 133 163 171 150 104 60
5275 Round 1 Summary Scores Page 2
5275 Round 1 Summary Scores
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .