Attachment_12_-_Evaluation_Plan___Scoring_Rubric.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP-25-002: 50th Anniversary Event Producer
- Solicitation number
- 0000036746
About this file
This is an Evaluation Plan and Scoring Rubric document for RFP-25-002 from the California Arts Council (CAC) for a 50th Anniversary Event Producer contract. The solicitation seeks a professional event producer to coordinate and execute the California Arts Council's 50th anniversary celebration, with a comprehensive evaluation process consisting of three phases: Administrative (pass/fail), Technical (80 possible points), and Cost (20 possible points). The total maximum points for the technical and cost phases is 100, with evaluators independently scoring proposals across multiple criteria including proposal quality, past work experience, resource allocation, and overall presentation.
The evaluation process includes extensive due diligence checks, requiring bidders to submit multiple mandatory attachments and business documents such as small business certifications, insurance coverage, business licenses, and references. Cost points will be calculated using a formula that awards maximum points (20) to the lowest cost proposal, with other bidders receiving proportional points. The CAC will conduct verifications including tax status, Secretary of State standing, and commercially useful function assessments. Bidders must demonstrate technical ability, cultural competence, and alignment with equity and human-centered approaches in their proposals.
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
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
Summary
| RFP-25-002 |
| California Arts Council's 50th Anniversary: Event Producer |
| Evaluation Plan |
The evaluation process consist of three (3) phases: Administrative, Technical and Costs.
| The Evaluation Committee will assess each bid package received by the deadline. Any late submissions will not be accepted. No exceptions. |
| The Evaluation Committee will rate their results based on merit against the rating/scoring criteria and adherence to the instructions and |
| response to the Request for Proposal requirements as outlined for this solicitation. |
| PHASE | EVALUATION | IF THIS, THEN |
| 1 | Administrative: The Evaluation Committee will evaluate the submissions for compliance as outlined for this solicitation. Pass or Fail. | Only the bid(s) that pass this phase |
| will proceed to Phase 2. |
PASS: Responsive Bidder - A bidder is considered responsive if it indicates compliance without material deviation from the requirements of the RFP and the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement.
2 Technical: The Evaluation Committee will evaluate submission for compliance with the Criteria as outlined for the Technical Criteria and Scoring Rubric. Each member in the panel will independently score the proposals. The member's scores will be added together to determine the final score. 80
3 Costs: Cost Points Formula = (Lowest Cost Proposal / Bidder's Cost Proposal) x Maximum Points. The maximum points is 30. The responsive and responsible bidder with the lowest cost proposal will receive the maximum points of 30. Other bidders will be based on the Cost Points Formula. If needed, points will be rounded to the nearest thousandth. 20
Total Max Points for Phases 2 + 3 100
FINAL RANKING
Phase 1 - Admin
| RFP-25-002 | |||
| California Arts Council 50th Anniversary: Event Producer | |||
| Phase 1 - Administrative Criteria (PASS / FAIL) | |||
| A complete bid package will consist of the items listed below (but may not be limited to). For a bid to be responsive and to pass Phase 1, all applicable required attachments (forms), business documents and components of the proposal requirements must be included in the bid package and adhere to the requirements as outlined in this solicitation. All required attachments (forms), business documents and proposal requirements must be submitted in (noneditable) PDF except for Attachment 5: Cost Proposal Worksheet, in which the bidder must use the attached template and submit in Excel format. Bidder is solely responsible for all attachment (forms), if applicable, is completed in full, correctly and contains all the required signatures and dates as needed to be deemed responsive. California Arts Council (CAC) will be conducting due diligence verifications throughout the evaluation process. | |||
| REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS | Received? | Notes / Other Concerns | |
| Attachment 1 : | Required Attachments and Mandatory Business Documents Checklist | Yes / No | |
| Attachment 2 : | Bidder/Proposer Certification Sheet | Yes / No | |
| Attachment 3 : | Bidder Declaration GSPD-05-105 | Yes / No | |
| Attachment 4: | Confidentiality Statement | Yes / No | |
| Attachment 5: | Cost Proposal Worksheet (in Excel) | Yes / No | In Excel? Does not exceed maximum budget? |
| Attachment 6: | Darfur Contracting Act | Yes / No / NA | |
| Attachment 7: | Individual & Sole Proprietor (if applicable or have no employees) | Yes / No / NA | |
| Attachment 8: | Workers' Compensation Certification (if applicable or have an employee or employees) | Yes / No / NA | |
| Attachment 9: | Payee Data Records STD 204 | Yes / No | |
| Attachment 10: | Contractor Certification Clauses CCC 04/2017 | Yes / No | |
| Attachment 11: | GenAI Notification Clause & Reporting | Yes / No | |
| Attachment 12: | Evaluation Plan and Scoring Rubric | Bidder Reference Only | |
| Attachment 13: | Commercially Useful Function Worksheet (Prime, Pre-listed subcontractors & Post-subcontractors) | Awarded Bidder(s) Only | |
| Attachment 14: | Standard Agreement STD 213 | Awarded Bidder(s) Only | |
| REQUIRED MANDATORY BUSINESS DOCUMENTS | Received? | Notes / Other Concerns | |
| Copy of the bidder's California Small Business (SB) Certificate. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| Copy of each subcontractor(s) California Small Business (SB) Certificate, if applicable. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| Copy of the prime/bidder’s California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) Certificate, if applicable. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| Copy of subcontractor's California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) Certificate, if applicable. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| Copy of bidder’s registration with the California Secretary of State, if applicable. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| If a nonprofit prime/bidder, copy of IRS designation letter showing your organization has the 501(c)(3) federal tax-exempt status. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| If prime/bidder is a Joint Powers of Agreement, copy of the agreement. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| Copy of bidder’s business license or business tax certificate. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| Copy of the prime/bidder’s liability insurance coverage. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| Other business document(s) as needed by CAC. | Yes / No / NA | Must be nonexpired. | |
| PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS | Received? | Notes / Other Concerns | |
| Project Narrative | Yes / No | ||
| Team Description and Roles | Yes / No | ||
| Work Examples | Yes / No | At least 2 examples. | |
| Cost Proposal Worksheet | Yes / No | In Excel? Does not exceed maximum budget? | |
| References | Yes / No | Up to 3 references. | |
| Resumes/CVs (for each team member) | Yes / No |
| SUMMARY: |
| All required attachments (forms), business documents, if applicable, and proposal requirements, as outlined in this solicitation, were submitted in good order with the bid package? YES / NO |
| and/or Bidder passes all due diligence checks? YES / NO |
| If yes, the bidder passes Phase 1: Administrative Criteria and can proceed to Phase 2 - Technical Criteria. |
Other Verifications
| RFP-25-002 |
| CREATIVE ECONOMY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION PARTNER |
| Due diligence to be conducted by California Arts Council |
| 1) If applicable, bidder (or their Do Business As - DBA) must be in good standing with California's Secretary of State. |
| 2) Bidder must not have a negative contractor evaluation on file with Department of General Services Office of Legal Services. Refer to PCC section 10371 and SCM Volume 1, Section 3.02.3. |
| 3) Prohibition on Tax Delinquency: Bidder must not be listed as a tax delinquent with Franchise Tax Board and/or Department of Tax and Fee Administration. |
| 4) Bidder must not have an active state or federal tax liens, suspensions or delinquent filings. |
| 5) CAC will or may be conducting a Commercially Useful Evaluation and Determination and will or may be competed for the bidder and for each subcontractor as listed on their Bidder Declaration GSPD-05-105. |
| https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/PD/OSDS/Certification/CUF/CUFEvaluationandDeterminationWorksheet.pdf?la=en&hash=7C4EB3152024272CB12D716A34A30FD758DDC7FB |
| 6) If applicable, SB/Micro/DVBE must be in active status or not expired. |
| 7) If applicable, 501(c )(3) must be in active status. |
| 8) Bidder must be a legal resident of the State of California, authorized to conduct business within the state, residents of the region and/or demonstrate presence in the region they want to service. |
| 9) Bidder has appropriate liability insurance coverage and is able to name CAC as an additional insured. CAC reserves the right to have Department of General Services Office of Risk and Insurance Management (ORIM) review a bidder's insurance coverage to ensure minimum insurance coverage are met as may be required by the State. Refer to https://www.dgs.ca.gov/ORIM. |
| 10) California Arts Council (CAC) may, at its sole discretion, perform further due diligence, verification or independent research on bidders, as deemed necessary, to ensure compliance and to support a comprehensive evaluation process to assess the bidder's qualifications and capacity to perform the proposed work. |
Phase 2 - Technical (use)
| RFP-25-002 |
| California Arts Council 50th Anniversary: Event Producer |
| Phase 2 - Technical Criteria (Panel will be using the scoring rubric below.) |
| 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 Requirements of the RFP | 20 | Candidate meets all of the RFP mandatory business requirements, desirable qualitifcations. | Candidate demonstrates that they meet all RFP requirements to a significant extent. Demonstrates technical ability and cultural competence as an individual/organization. | 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | |
| Quality of Proposed Project | 25 | Candidate can provide exemplary insight to benefit the project, specifically around the role and value of the subject matter. | 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | |
| Demonstrates Quality in Past Work | 15 | 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | |
| Realistic Resource Allocation | |||||||||
| 10 | 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | ||
| Accuracy and Overall Presentati on of the Proposal | 10 | 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | ||||||
| Maximum Points Per Evaluator (pre Cost Points) | 80 | ||||||||
| FORMULA: Cost Points = (Lowest Cost Proposal / Bidder's Cost Proposal) x Maximum Cost Points | |||||||||
| The responsive and responsible bidder with the lowest cost proposal will receive the maximum cost points which is ________. | |||||||||
| Example: If Evaluation Panel consist of 3 evaluators x 170 max points = 510 total max points for Phase 2 - Technical Criteria |
Glossary: Panelist = Reviewers = Evaluators of the RFP
Phase 3 - Cost
| RFP-25-002 |
| California Arts Council 50th Anniversary Event Producer |
| Phase 3 - Cost |
| FORMULA: Cost Points = (Lowest Cost Proposal / Bidder's Cost Proposal) x Maximum Cost Points |
| The responsive and responsible bidder with the lowest cost proposal will receive the maximum cost points which is 20 points. |
Cost of Proposal 20 Scores are determined by a standard formula and are therefore not assigned by the Evaluation Committee. Cost Worksheet (s) and/or other due diligence information
DISREGARD
| RFP-25-002 |
| California Arts Council 50th Anniversary: Event Producer |
| Phase 2 - Technical Criteria (Panel will be using the scoring rubric below.) |
| 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 Requirements of the RFP | Phase 2 - Technical | Candidate demonstrates that they meet all RFP requirements to a significant extent. Demonstrates technical ability and cultural competence as an individual/organization. | 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | ||||
| Quality of Proposed Project | Candidate can provide exemplary insight to benefit the project, specifically around the role and value of the subject matter. | 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | ||||
| Demonstrates 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | ||||
| Alignment of Values | 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 is leading their field in human-centered, participatory, and equitable approaches to their work, in particular around inclusion and geographic equity and could provide thought leadership on integrating approaches into the project and activities. | Candidate has demonstrated a commitment to participatory, equity, inclusive and human-centered approach in their work and applied in the past. | Candidate has demonstrated a commitment to participatory, equity, inclusive and human-centered approach in the past but has not led such a process. | Candidate may not have used a participatory, equity, inclusive and human-centered approach in their work, but they understand the concepts. | Panelists has multiple questions about the candidate’s understanding of participatory, equity, inclusive and human-centered approaches. | There is no evidence the candidate understands racial or geographic equity issues or employs a participatory, inclusive or human- centered approach. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | ||
| Realistic Resource Allocation | |||||||||||
| Resources are appropriately allocated and fully leveraged in the best interest of taxpayers. | Resources are appropriately allocated. | 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | |||
| 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 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. | Proposal Requirements: Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work Examples, References, Resumes/CVs, Cost Proposal and/or other due diligence information | ||||||||
| Maximum Points Per Evaluator (pre Cost Points) | |||||||||||
| FORMULA: Cost Points = (Lowest Cost Proposal / Bidder's Cost Proposal) x Maximum Cost Points | |||||||||||
| The responsive and responsible bidder with the lowest cost proposal will receive the maximum cost points which is ________. | |||||||||||
| Example: If Evaluation Panel consist of 3 evaluators x 170 max points = 510 total max points for Phase 2 - Technical Criteria |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .