Appendix_1_-_Proposal_Scoring_Rubric.pdf

Appendix 1: Proposal Scoring Rubric

Rating/ Scoring Criteria

Maximum Possible Points

Point Scale Proposal Components to be considered when rating

100 to 91% of the points will be given when

90 to 81% of the points will be given when

80 to 61% of the points will be given when

60 to 24% of the points will be given when

25 to 1% of the points will be given when

0% of the points will be given when

Meets Requirem ents of the

RFP

Candidate could provide thought leadership on the subject;

demonstrates proven capacity to centralize equity as the primary evaluation lens, and demonstration of overall cultural competence.

Candidate demonstrates that they meet all RFP requirements to a significant extent.

Demonstrates cultural competence as an individual/organizati on.

Candidate demonstrates that they meet most RFP requirements.

Candidate demonstrates that they meet a few RFP requirements.

Candidate demonstrates that they meet one or two

RFP

requirements.

There is no evidence the candidate meets any of the RFP requirements.

Summary Letter, Demonstration of Minimum

Requirements, Acceptance of

Terms and Conditions

Quality of Proposed

Project

Candidate can provide exemplary insight to benefit the project, specifically around questions of equity and participation.

Candidate is very likely to deliver the required outcome.

Candidate is likely to deliver the required outcome.

It is unclear if the proposed project will fulfill the needs of the

RFP.

The proposed project is not fully fleshed out.

The proposed project is not articulated within the proposal.

Summary Letter, Demonstration of Minimum

Requirements, Methodology and Approach

Demonstr ates

Quality in Past Work

Candidate has experience that includes both comparable projects and tangential projects.

Candidate has performed all the specific duties required by the project.

Candidate has performed at least some of the specific duties required by the project.

Candidate may not have performed the specific duties represented in the current project but has related experience.

Panelist has multiple questions about the candidate’s ability to leverage their experience to meet the needs of the project.

Panelist is unable to confidently assess the criteria due to lack of information or clarity.

Summary Letter, Project

Personnel, References

Alignment of Values 20

Candidate is leading their field in human-centered, racially equitable approaches to their work and could provide thought leadership on the subject.

Candidate has demonstrated a commitment to racial equity and a human-centered approach in their work.

Candidate has demonstrated a human-centered, racially equitable approach in the past but has not led such a process.

Candidate may not have used a human-centered approach or addressed racial equity in their work, but they understand the concepts.

Panelists has multiple questions about how the candidate’s understanding of human-centered or racially equitable approaches.

There is no evidence the candidate understands racial equity issues or employs a human-centered approach.

Summary Letter, Demonstration of Minimum

Requirements, Methodology and Approach

Realistic Resource Allocation

Resources are appropriately allocated and fully leveraged in the best interest of taxpayers.

Resources are appropriately allocated.

Panelist has one or two questions about why resources are allocated as they are.

Panelist has a few questions about why resources are allocated as they are.

Panelist has significant questions about why resources are allocated as they are.

Panelist is unable to confidently assess the criteria due to lack of information or clarity.

Summary Letter, Project

Personnel, Methodology and Approach, Cost Proposal

Worksheet

Accuracy and

Overall Presentati on of the Proposal

Proposal includes flawless grammar and spelling. The

Proposal is organized for ease of reading.

Proposal includes one or two grammar or spelling errors. Proposal is mostly organized for ease of reading.

Proposal includes a few grammar or spelling errors. Some information is buried or out of place.

Proposal includes several grammar or spelling errors.

Proposal is mostly organized for ease of reading.

Panelist is unable to confidently assess the criteria due to lack of organization or clarity.

Proposal contains so many errors and/or is so disorganized that Panelist has difficulty assessing other criteria.

All Proposal Components:

Grammar, Spelling, Organization of Information

Cost of Proposal 60 Scores are determined by a standard formula and are therefore not assigned by Panelists. Budget

200 Total Points Possible

Appendix 1: Proposal Scoring Rubric (continued)

Evaluator's Name: _____________________

Evaluation Date: _________________