Attachment_15_-_Eval_Plan___Scoring_RFP-26-015.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 204 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 0000040582
- Issued by
- Sacramento County, Sacramento City, West Sacramento City, California
About this file
This is an Evaluation and Scoring Rubric document for RFP-26-015 issued by the California Arts Council (CAC) for Reasonable Accommodation, Ergonomic and Training Services. The RFP seeks a single qualified contractor to provide comprehensive professional services supporting the CAC's reasonable accommodation (RA), ergonomics, and training initiatives. The scope of work encompasses three primary service areas: (1) reasonable accommodation services including individualized assessments, support for interactive processes, evaluation of job functions and workplace barriers, development of written RA recommendations, coordination with ergonomic services, and handling of medical information; (2) ergonomic services including individualized assessments, workstation evaluations, identification of ergonomic risk factors, equipment recommendations, written reports, employee instruction, and follow-up consultation; and (3) training and program support services including development and delivery of RA and ergonomic training for managers, supervisors, HR personnel, guidance on RA documentation and confidentiality, and consultation on program administration. The bid submission deadline is October 22, 2026 at 5:00 PM, with bids to be emailed to Procurement@arts.ca.gov. The contract term is three years, and CAC is open to proposals from California-based independent contractors, individuals, sole proprietors, partnerships, certified small businesses, disabled veteran business enterprises, 501(c)(3) organizations, private for-profit organizations, and joint powers agreements.
The evaluation process consists of three phases: Administrative (Pass/Fail), Technical (maximum 340 points including up to 40 reference points), and Cost (maximum 30 points). The technical scoring is based on three categories—Reasonable Accommodation Services (45 points), Ergonomic Services (45 points), and Training and Program Support (10 points)—with a five-tier scoring scale ranging from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. Reference points are awarded based on four required references (two for RA and two for ergonomics services) from the past five years. Cost points are calculated using a formula where the lowest-cost proposal receives the maximum 30 points, with other bidders scored proportionally. The total maximum score is 370 points. Additional points may be applied for Small Business Preference, Target Area Contract Preference Act (TACPA) worksite and workforce preferences, and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) incentives. Bidders must meet administrative compliance requirements, pass due diligence verification including California Secretary of State registration status, tax compliance, liability insurance, and relevant certifications/licenses, and demonstrate California residency or regional presence.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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-26-015 | version 10/07/2026 |
| Reasonable Accommodation, Ergonomic and Training Services |
ATTACHMENT 15: Evaluation and Scoring Rubic
Evaluation Plan Summary
The evaluation process consist of three (3) phases: (1) Administrative, (2) Technical and (3) 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. | ||
| Refer to Attachment 1: Required Attachments & Mandatory Business Document Checklist and Proposal/Narrative Requirements |
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. (100 max points x 3 reviewer) + 40 reference points (max) = 300 + 40 = 340
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. Bidder's whose cost proposal exceeds the budget limit will receive zero (0) points. 30 max points
Total Max Points for Phases 2 + 3 370 max points
Initial Ranking (prior to applying Preference and Incentive Points)
Apply Small Business Preference Points (if applicable)
| Target Area Contract Preference Act (TACPA) Worksite, if applicable |
| Target Area Contract Preference Act (TACPA) Workforce, if applicable |
| Apply Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) Incentive Percentage (if applicable) |
Apply DVBE Incentive Points (if applicable)
ADJUSTED FINAL SCORE (including SB, TACPA, and DVBE)
FINAL RANKING
P1- Admin
| RFP-26-015 |
| Reasonable Accommodation, Ergonomic and Training Services |
| Phase 1 - Administrative (Pass or Fail) |
| 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, Technical. | ||
| Refer to Attachment 1: Required Attachments & Mandatory Business Document Checklist and Proposal/Narrative Requirements |
| All requested and required forms must be completed, signed and dated and then submitted |
| with your bid package. |
Other Verifications
| RFP-26-015 |
| Reasonable Accommodation, Ergonomic and Training Services |
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) Company certifications and/or licenses, Staff certifications and/or licenses and the equivalent. |
| 11) 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. |
P2 - Technical
| RFP-26-015 Reasonable Accomodation, Ergonomics, and Training Services | RFP #: RFP-26-015 |
| Reasonable Accommodation (RA), Ergo Services, and Training | |
| Phase 2 - Technical |
| Exceptional | Very Good | Satisfactory | Marginal | Unsatisfactory | |||||||
| # | CATEGORIES | SOW-SPECIFIC SCORING CRITERIA* | MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE | MAXIMUM POINTS | POINTS GIVEN PER SCORER | 100% - 91 | 90% - 81 | 80% - 71 | 70% - 61 | 60% - 0 | REFERENCE DOCUMENTS |
| 1 | Reasonable Accommodation Services | (1) What must I evaluate? (2) How well did the bidder address those criteria? (3) What information/document am I suppsoed to use? | 45% | 45 | The proposal fully addresses all or substantially all requirements of the applicable scope of work (SOW) category and demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the services. The bidder provides a highly detailed, specific, and well-supported approach, with substantial directly relevant experience and highly qualified personnel. The proposed methodology is clear, feasible, and demonstrates a high likelihood of successful performance. Any weaknesses or omissions are minor and immaterial and present little or no performance risk to the State. | The proposal fully addresses most requirements of the applicable SOW category and demonstrates a strong understanding of the services. The bidder provides a well-developed and credible approach, supported by relevant experience and qualified personnel. The proposal may contain minor weaknesses, omissions, or areas lacking detail, but they are not expected to materially affect successful contract performance. | The proposal adequately addresses the principal requirements of the applicable SOW category and demonstrates sufficient understanding, experience, staffing, and capability to perform the services. The approach is generally feasible but contains some weaknesses, gaps, or insufficient detail that may require clarification or additional State oversight. The weaknesses do not, individually or collectively, demonstrate an inability to perform the required services. | The proposal partially addresses the requirements of the applicable SOW category but demonstrates limited understanding, experience, staffing, or methodology in one or more significant areas. The proposal contains notable weaknesses, omissions, or deficiencies that create meaningful performance risk and may require substantial clarification, additional oversight, or corrective action. | The proposal fails to adequately address one or more material requirements of the applicable SOW category or demonstrates insufficient understanding, relevant experience, qualified personnel, methodology, or capacity. The proposal contains significant deficiencies or omissions that create substantial performance risk or provide insufficient information for the State to determine that the bidder can successfully perform the required services. | Bidder Narrattive or Questionnaire Response to MQ 1 - MQ 10. Minimum Qualifications. Staff CVs. Company and/or Staff certification and/or licenses. References provided. | |
| 2 | Ergonomic Services | (1) What must I evaluate? (2) How well did the bidder address those criteria? (3) What information/document am I suppsoed to use? | 45% | 45 | The proposal fully addresses all or substantially all requirements of the applicable scope of work (SOW) category and demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the services. The bidder provides a highly detailed, specific, and well-supported approach, with substantial directly relevant experience and highly qualified personnel. The proposed methodology is clear, feasible, and demonstrates a high likelihood of successful performance. Any weaknesses or omissions are minor and immaterial and present little or no performance risk to the State. | The proposal fully addresses most requirements of the applicable SOW category and demonstrates a strong understanding of the services. The bidder provides a well-developed and credible approach, supported by relevant experience and qualified personnel. The proposal may contain minor weaknesses, omissions, or areas lacking detail, but they are not expected to materially affect successful contract performance. | The proposal adequately addresses the principal requirements of the applicable SOW category and demonstrates sufficient understanding, experience, staffing, and capability to perform the services. The approach is generally feasible but contains some weaknesses, gaps, or insufficient detail that may require clarification or additional State oversight. The weaknesses do not, individually or collectively, demonstrate an inability to perform the required services. | The proposal partially addresses the requirements of the applicable SOW category but demonstrates limited understanding, experience, staffing, or methodology in one or more significant areas. The proposal contains notable weaknesses, omissions, or deficiencies that create meaningful performance risk and may require substantial clarification, additional oversight, or corrective action. | The proposal fails to adequately address one or more material requirements of the applicable SOW category or demonstrates insufficient understanding, relevant experience, qualified personnel, methodology, or capacity. The proposal contains significant deficiencies or omissions that create substantial performance risk or provide insufficient information for the State to determine that the bidder can successfully perform the required services. | Bidder Narrattive or Questionnaire Response to MQ 1 - MQ 10. Minimum Qualifications. Staff CVs. Company and/or Staff certification and/or licenses. References provided. | |
| 3 | Training & Program Support | (1) What must I evaluate? (2) How well did the bidder address those criteria? (3) What information/document am I suppsoed to use? | 10% | 10 | The proposal fully addresses all or substantially all requirements of the applicable scope of work (SOW) category and demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the services. The bidder provides a highly detailed, specific, and well-supported approach, with substantial directly relevant experience and highly qualified personnel. The proposed methodology is clear, feasible, and demonstrates a high likelihood of successful performance. Any weaknesses or omissions are minor and immaterial and present little or no performance risk to the State. | The proposal fully addresses most requirements of the applicable SOW category and demonstrates a strong understanding of the services. The bidder provides a well-developed and credible approach, supported by relevant experience and qualified personnel. The proposal may contain minor weaknesses, omissions, or areas lacking detail, but they are not expected to materially affect successful contract performance. | The proposal adequately addresses the principal requirements of the applicable SOW category and demonstrates sufficient understanding, experience, staffing, and capability to perform the services. The approach is generally feasible but contains some weaknesses, gaps, or insufficient detail that may require clarification or additional State oversight. The weaknesses do not, individually or collectively, demonstrate an inability to perform the required services. | The proposal partially addresses the requirements of the applicable SOW category but demonstrates limited understanding, experience, staffing, or methodology in one or more significant areas. The proposal contains notable weaknesses, omissions, or deficiencies that create meaningful performance risk and may require substantial clarification, additional oversight, or corrective action. | The proposal fails to adequately address one or more material requirements of the applicable SOW category or demonstrates insufficient understanding, relevant experience, qualified personnel, methodology, or capacity. The proposal contains significant deficiencies or omissions that create substantial performance risk or provide insufficient information for the State to determine that the bidder can successfully perform the required services. | Bidder Narrattive or Questionnaire Response to MQ 1 - MQ 10. Minimum Qualifications. Staff CVs. Company and/or Staff certification and/or licenses. References provided. | |
| 4 | References (Four total: 2 RA + 2 Ergo from within the last 5 years.)** | Rating will be provided by each reference. Max points per reference = 10 only | 40 | Bidder can receive only up to 40 points, maximum. Up to 10 points per reachable refeence. | References (Four total: 2 RA + 2 Ergo from within the last 5 years.)** | ||||||
| TOTAL POINTS = | 100% | 140 | 0 |
| IMPORTANT NOTES | |
| * | Scope of Work (SOW) Specific Criteria - Refer to SOW Specific tab for more details. |
| ** | Only up to two (2) RA and Ergo will be given points. For example, if bidder only provides one (1) reference for RA and three (3) for Ergo, the bidder will not receive points for the third Ergo reference. |
SOW Specific Scope of Work (SOW) Specific Scoring Criteria
1 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION SERVICES
| Sscope of Work (SOW)-Specific Evaluation Criteria |
| Evaluate the Bidder's demonstrated qualifications, experience, staffing, methodology, and capacity to provide the Reasonable Accommodation services required by the SOW, including: |
| * | Initial RA case review and individualized assessment of accommodation requests. |
| * | Support for the interactive process, including consultation with designated State personnel and, as appropriate, employees and other authorized participants. |
| * | Evaluation of essential job functions, functional limitations, workplace barriers, and potential reasonable accommodation options and alternatives. |
| * | Development of clear, objective, and well-supported written RA recommendations and related documentation. |
| * | Ability to identify and evaluate alternative accommodations when an initially requested accommodation is unavailable, ineffective, or requires further analysis. |
| * | Timely follow-up regarding implementation, effectiveness, changed circumstances, and the need for modification or additional accommodation. |
| * | Appropriate handling of medical and disability-related information, including confidentiality and separation of protected information. |
| * | Experience supporting complex, sensitive, or time-sensitive RA matters. |
| * | Ability to coordinate RA services with ergonomic assessment and other specialized services when appropriate. |
| * | Demonstrated understanding that the Contractor serves in an advisory capacity and that final accommodation and employment decisions remain with the State. |
2 ERGONOMIC SERVICES
| SOW-Specific Evaluation Criteria |
| Evaluate the Bidder's demonstrated qualifications, experience, staffing, methodology, and capacity to provide the Ergonomic Services required by the SOW, including: |
| * | Conducting individualized ergonomic assessments for employees and work environments, including onsite and remote assessments as authorized by the State. |
| * | Evaluation of workstations, equipment, work practices, job tasks, positioning, environmental conditions, and other relevant ergonomic factors. |
| * | Identification of ergonomic risk factors and workplace conditions that may contribute to discomfort, functional limitations, or other ergonomic concerns. |
| * | Development of practical and individualized recommendations regarding workstation configuration, equipment, accessories, work practices, positioning, or other appropriate ergonomic measures. |
| * | Preparation of clear written ergonomic assessment reports documenting observations, findings, recommendations, and appropriate implementation considerations. |
| * | Ability to provide equipment specifications or functional requirements without creating unnecessary dependence on a particular vendor or proprietary product. |
| * | Employee instruction regarding appropriate workstation setup, equipment use, positioning, and recommended work practices. |
| * | Follow-up assessment or consultation to determine whether implemented recommendations are effective or require modification. |
| * | Ability to distinguish routine ergonomic matters from circumstances that may implicate the State's RA process and appropriately coordinate with designated State personnel. |
| * | Availability and capacity to perform authorized services at State-designated locations when onsite assessment is necessary. |
3 TRAINING & PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES
| SOW-Specific Evaluation Criteria |
| Evaluate the Bidder's demonstrated qualifications, experience, methodology, and ability to provide the Training and Program Support required by the SOW, including: |
| * | Experience developing and delivering RA and ergonomic training appropriate for managers, supervisors, HR/personnel staff, and other State-designated participants. |
| * | Ability to explain manager and supervisor responsibilities associated with recognizing potential accommodation issues and appropriately engaging or referring matters for the interactive process. |
| * | Training regarding appropriate RA documentation, confidentiality, medical-information boundaries, implementation, follow-up, and related responsibilities. |
| * | Training and guidance concerning ergonomic principles, identification of common workplace ergonomic concerns, workstation practices, and appropriate referral for individualized assessment. |
| * | Ability to provide practical, understandable, and workplace-relevant training rather than solely theoretical or legal instruction. |
| * | Ability to tailor training content and delivery to the State's workforce, policies, operational needs, and identified program issues. |
| * | Experience providing consultation regarding RA and ergonomic program administration, processes, practices, documentation, and opportunities for program improvement. |
| * | Qualifications and relevant experience of proposed trainers and program consultants. |
| * | Quality and suitability of proposed training methodology, materials, delivery methods, and participant resources. |
| * | Ability to provide authorized follow-up consultation or technical assistance to designated State personnel regarding program implementation. |
P3 - Cost
| RFP-26-015 |
| Reasonable Accommodation, Ergonomic and Training Services |
| Phase 3 - 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 30 points. |
Cost of Proposal 30 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
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .