Appendix 2 - RFGA Scoring Rubric.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-44300-00017937
- Issued by
- Oregon
About this file
This document is a scoring rubric for the Oregon Health Authority's Request for Grant Proposals (RFGP #6312) for Opioid Settlement Community Grants under Oregon Buys Bid #S-44300-00017937. The rubric is used by reviewers to evaluate proposals submitted by organizations seeking funding to address the opioid crisis across five funding categories: Primary Prevention, Overdose Prevention and Risk Reduction, Treatment, Recovery, and Innovative Research. Proposals are assessed through a two-step review process, with Step 2 determining which proposals advance to Step 3 consideration. The evaluation framework assesses the project narrative, project plan, and supporting documentation including letters of commitment and budget justifications.
The scoring rubric employs a standardized three-tier evaluation system (0, 1, or 2 points) across multiple criteria within the project narrative and project plan sections. Project narrative evaluation covers eight dimensions: purpose and goals alignment, resources and services gap identification, population needs assessment, cultural tailoring for communities experiencing disparities, alignment with the Addiction and Public Health Division Comprehensive Plan, evidence-based or innovative approaches, organizational experience, organizational infrastructure, and sustainability planning. Project plan evaluation assesses goals, strategies, objectives, outcomes, activities and timelines, and process and impact evaluation methodologies. Reviewers also provide overall feasibility and impact assessments and verify pass/fail requirements for letters of commitment and budget compliance. The Oregon Health Authority's stated goals for these grants are to reduce substance use and substance use disorders, reduce deaths related to substance use, and reduce disparities and inequities related to substance use.
View the file
Other files
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
Rubric RFGP # 6312: Opioid Settlement Community Grants - Appendix 2 Oregon Buys Bid # S-44300-00017937
| Reviewer Scoring Form | |
| Proposal Name: | |
| Reviewer Number: | |
| Date of Review: | |
| Step 1 Review | Note: After initial eligibility screening, Step 2 review determines which proposals move forward to Step 3. OHA may revisit the proposal pool if needed to ensure equitable consideration. |
| How to Score Each Question | Scoring Instructions (for all rubric items) |
Select one score for each question:
0 – Does Not Meet Expectations: Missing key information; unclear or not feasible.
1 – Partially Meets Expectations: Some elements are present, but clarity, alignment, or feasibility is uncertain.
2 – Meets Expectations: Clear, complete, feasible, and aligned with RFGP goals.
Reviewer Notes:
Strengths/Weaknesses (required) Questions/Comments (optional)
| Scoring Rubric | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Does not Meet Expectations | |
| Missing key information; unclear or not feasible | 1: Partially Meets Expectations | ||
| Some elements are present, but clarity, alignment, or feasibility is uncertain | 2: Meets Expectations | ||
| Clear, complete, feasible, and aligned with RFGP goals | Select scores below (dropdown list) | Strengths/Weaknesses | |
| (required) | Questions/Comments |
(optional)
| Project Narrative (Document B) | ||||
| 1: Purpose & Goals | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Purpose and goals are missing, unrealistic, or not aligned with funding category | 1: Purpose and goals are somewhat clear but only partially aligned or feasible | 2: Purpose and goals are clear, realistic, and well aligned with the funding category |
| 2. Resources/services gap | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: No evidence of resources/services gap or challenge; no clear connection between project and a specific gap or challenge | 1: Mentions possible gaps or challenges but does not provide adequate evidence or does not clearly demonstrate how activities address them | 2: Provides compelling evidence of resources/services gap or challenge; Clearly explains how project activities address them |
| 3.1: Population needs | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Does not describe or provide evidence for population needs; does not connect the project to the specific needs of the population it intends to serve | 1: Generally describes population needs but does not fully connect project activities to the population of focus; project activities do not feasibly or specifically address population of focus needs | 2: Clearly describes population needs and explains how the project’s activities meaningfully support them |
| 3.2: Culturally tailored approaches among communities experiencing disparities |
Score: 1 point total
| (Select if the project is culturally and/or linguistically tailored for communities experiencing substance use-related disparities) | 1: Clearly describes how the project will consider specific needs, challenges, or characteristics to make a meaningful difference within a population experiencing substance use-related disparities | |||
| 4: Alignment with ADPC Comprehensive Plan | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: No clear alignment with ADPC goals, priorities, or strategies | 1: Some alignment, but incomplete or unclear | 2: Strong alignment with ADPC goals, priorities, and strategies |
| 5: Evidence-based, Community Informed, or Innovative Approaches | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: No connection to evidence, community insights, or innovation | 1: Mentions approaches, but unclear links to community context or population needs | 2: Clearly describes evidence based, community informed, or innovative approaches and describes how methods are appropriate for the community and the population of focus |
| 6: Organizational experience (experience related to type of work proposed, engaging the population of focus and/or relevant community partners, or staff training and experience) | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: No relevant experience or skills described | 1: Experience described generally, with unclear relevance to project needs | 2: Relevant experience with subject matter and/or population; clearly supports project success |
| 7: Organizational infrastructure (staffing capacity, operational capacity, partnerships and community relationships, readiness for the proposed project) | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Insufficient information to assess feasibility to support successful project implementation | 1: Some infrastructure exists, but capacity concerns remain | 2: Infrastructure is clearly sufficient to support successful project implementation |
| 8: Sustainability Plan | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Sustainability plan is missing or unrealistic; it is likely that related work will end at the end of this grant period and that outcomes will discontinue | 1: Sustainability plan exists but may not support continued work or sustained outcomes after grant period | 2: Clear and feasible plan for sustaining work or positive outcomes beyond the grant period |
| Scoring Rubric | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Does not Meet Expectations | |
| Missing key information; unclear or not feasible | 1: Partially Meets Expectations | ||
| Some elements are present, but clarity, alignment, or feasibility is uncertain | 2: Meets Expectations | ||
| Clear, complete, feasible, and aligned with RFGP goals | Select scores below (dropdown list) | Strengths/Weaknesses | |
| (required) | Questions/Comments |
(optional)
| Project Plan (Document C) | ||||
| Questions 1-3: Goals, Strategies, Objectives, Outcomes | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Missing or misaligned | 1: Present but feasibility or alignment is unclear | 2: Clear, aligned, and likely to support anticipated outcomes. |
| Question 4: Activities and timeline | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Timeline or activity logic is unclear; plan may be unrealistic | 1: Timeline and activities are included but feasibility or sequencing is uncertain | 2: Clear, feasible activities and timeline that support successful implementation |
| Questions 6-7: Process and impact evaluation (process evaluation = tracking project activities; impact evaluation = measuring project outcomes) | ||||
| Score: 0/1/2 | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: No plan for tracking activities or measuring impact | 1: General statements; feasibility for tracking activities or measuring impact is unclear | 2: Specific, feasible plan for tracking activities and measuring impact |
| Scoring Rubric | 0: Proposer Provided No Response | 0: Does not Meet Expectations | |
| Missing key information; unclear or not feasible | 1: Partially Meets Expectations | ||
| Some elements are present, but clarity, alignment, or feasibility is uncertain | 2: Meets Expectations | ||
| Clear, complete, feasible, and aligned with RFGP goals | Select scores below (dropdown list) | Strengths/Weaknesses | |
| (required) | Questions/Comments |
(optional) Overall Reviewer Assessment Reviewers will assign Project Feasibility and Project Impact scores based on their overall assessments of the project plan
| Project Feasibility: There is a high likelihood that the applicant will successfully implement project activities as intended. | 0: There is not enough evidence to adequately assess project feasibility | 1: Project feasibility is uncertain based on the information provided | 2: It is highly likely that applicant will successfully implement the project as intended |
| Project Impact: There is a high likelihood that the project will achieve the anticipated outcomes and have the intended impact on the population of focus. | 0: There is not enough evidence to adequately assess project impact | 1: Project impact is uncertain based on the information provided; it is not clear whether the project will successfully achieve the anticipated outcomes | 2: It is highly likely that the project will achieve the anticipated outcomes and have the intended impact on the population of focus |
| Additional evaluation: Pass/fail only. These criteria do not affect Step 1 scoring but must be satisfied for funding consideration. | Select scores below (dropdown list) | Strengths/Weaknesses | |
| (required) | Questions/Comments |
(optional)
| Letters of Commitment (required only if partners are included) | |||
| Roles, resources, and duration are clearly described: Pass/Fail | Not applicable | Fail | Pass |
| Letters align with project plan: Pass/Fail | Not applicable | Fail | Pass |
| Partner organization’s experience with subject matter/community is clear: Pass/Fail | Not applicable | Fail | Pass |
| Budget and Budget Narrative | |||
| Budget is complete and free from major errors: Pass/Fail | |||
| Fail | Pass | ||
| Budget aligns with allowable uses: Pass/Fail | Fail | Pass | |
| Budget aligns with the project plan and the estimated number of people served: Pass/Fail | Fail | Pass | |
| Budget narrative clearly justifies spending categories: Pass/Fail | Fail | Pass |
(Optional - not scored) Reviewer Notes Additional Strengths - Highlight notable strengths, equity considerations, or promising approaches beyond rubric criteria:
(Optional - not scored) Additional Outcome/Impact Analysis Add observations about anticipated population benefit or long-term effects of the project:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .