Attachment_16_-_Evaluation_Plan___Scoring_Rubric.pdf
PDF 252 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 0000034798
- Issued by
- Sacramento County, Sacramento City, West Sacramento City, California
About this file
This document is an evaluation plan and scoring rubric for a Request for Proposal (RFP-24-004) issued by the California Arts Council for Native American & Indigenous Artists Consulting Services. The RFP outlines a three-phase evaluation process: Administrative (pass/fail), Technical (maximum 420 points), and Cost (maximum 60 points). Bidders must submit a comprehensive proposal package including a narrative, team description, work examples, detailed timeline, and references. The evaluation will assess candidates on their ability to meet RFP requirements, quality of proposed project, demonstrated work experience, alignment of values, resource allocation, and overall proposal presentation.
The scoring methodology is detailed across six key criteria: meeting RFP requirements (25 points), quality of proposed project (60 points), demonstrated quality in past work (15 points), alignment of values (20 points), realistic resource allocation (15 points), and accuracy of proposal presentation (5 points). Cost points will be calculated using a formula where the lowest-cost bidder receives the maximum 60 points. The evaluation will be conducted by a committee of three evaluators, with each evaluator scoring the proposal and the scores being cumulative. Bidders must demonstrate cultural competence, equity-centered approaches, and the ability to provide comprehensive consulting services for Native American and Indigenous artists.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
RFP-24-004
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous Artists Consulting Services
EVALUATION PLAN
The evaluation criteria consist of three (3) phases: Administrative, Technical, and Costs.
The Evaluation Committee will assess each bid package received by the submission deadline. The Evaluation Committee will rate their results on each Evaluation Sheet based on merit against the rating/scoring criteria and adherence to the instructions and response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements as outlined on RFP-24-004.
PHASE EVALUATION IF THIS, THEN
1 ADMINISTRATIVE: The Evaluation Committee will evaluate the submissions for compliance with the Criteria listed in the Administrative Criteria. PASS or FAIL
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 contract.
Only the bid(s) that pass this requirement will proceed to Phase 2.
2 TECHNICAL: The Evaluation Committee will evaluate submission for compliance with the Criteria listed in the Technical Criteria and using the Scoring Rubric (below). Cumulative.
140 max points (each) x 3 evaluators = 420 max points
3 COSTS: The Evaluation Committee will calculate the cost points per the Cost Criteria. Points will be based on the Cost Points Formula.
60 max points
Total Max Points for Phases: 1, 2 and 3 480 max points
INITIAL RANKING (prior to applying Preference and Incentive Points)
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
Apply Small Business Preference Points (if applicable)
Apply DVBE Incentive Percentage (if applicable)
Apply DVBE Incentive Points (if applicable)
Adjusted Final Score
FINAL RANKING
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
PHASE 1: ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA (PASS/FAIL)
A complete bid package will consist of the items listed below. For a bid to be responsive, all applicable required attachments and business documents must be included in the bid package and adhere to the requirements as outlined in the RFP-24-004. All required attachments and business documents must be submitted in (noneditable) PDF except the Attachment 7 – Cost Proposal Worksheet, which must be submitted in Excel.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED
WITH BID
PACKAGE?
(Y / N / NA)
CORRECTLY
COMPLETED?
(Y / N / NA)
SIGNED?
(Y / N / NA)
OTHER
Attachment 1: Required Attachment and Documents Checklist
Attachment 2: Bidder Certification Sheet
Attachment 3: Bidder Declaration
GSPD-05-105
Sign, date and put your company name at the bottom of the page under Certification.
Attachment 4: DVBE Participation Incentive Form
Attachment 5: Confidentiality Statement
Attachment 6: Commercially Useful Function (CUF) Certification
Carla Pareja Highlight
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
Attachment 7: Cost Proposal Worksheet (Excel)
$100K or less? (Y/N)
Attachment 8: Darfur Contracting Act, if applicable
Attachment 9: Workers’ Compensation Certification, if applicable
Required from businesses with employee/s.
Attachment 10: Individual & Sole Proprietor Statement, if applicable
Required from businesses with no employee/s.
Attachment 11: Payee Data Record
STD 204
Attachment 12: Contractor Certification Clauses CCC/04/2017
Attachment 13: GenAI Notification Clause
Attachment 14: DGS PD 843 DVBE Declaration (if prime contractor/bidder is DVBE, if applicable)
Required from DVBE bidder.
DGS PD 843 DVBE
Declaration – Subcontractor #1, if applicable
Required if bidder will use DVBE subcontractor(s) identified on their Bidder Declaration DGS
PD-05-105.
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
DGS PD 843 DVBE
Declaration – Subcontractor #2, if applicable
Required if bidder will use DVBE subcontractor(s) identified on their Bidder Declaration DGS
PD-05-105.
Attachment 15: Confirmation Letter Form DVBE Subcontractor – Subcontractor #1
Required from bidder using DVBE subcontractor(s) identified on their Bidder Declaration DGS PD-05-105.
Confirmation Letter Form DVBE Subcontractor – Subcontractor #2
Required from bidder using DVBE subcontractor(s) identified on their Bidder Declaration DGS PD-05-105.
Reference Attachment 16:
Evaluation Plan & Scoring Rubric
Reference Only
Awarded Bidder Only
Attachment 17: Prime Contractor’s (Bidder) Certification DVBE Subcontractor Report STD 817, if applicable and upon completion of the contract
Awarded Bidder Only
Awarded Bidder only
Attachment 18:
Standard Agreement STD 213 (example only)
Awarded Bidder Only
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
MANDATORY BUSINESS
DOCUMENTS
INCLUDED
WITH BID
PACKAGE?
(Y / N / NA)
CORRECTLY
COMPLETED?
(Y / N / NA)
SIGNED?
(Y / N / NA)
OTHER
Bidder - Copy of California Certification for SB/Micro and/or DVBE, if applicable. Must be in active status.
NON-APPLICABLE
Required from SB/SB(micro)/DVBE bidder(s).
Subcontractor(s) – Copy of California Certification SB/Micro and/or DVBE, if applicable. Must be in active status.
Required if using SB/SB(micro)/DVBE subcontractor(s) as listed on Bidder Declaration GSPD-05- 105.
Copy Current Business License(s)/Permits or Business Tax Certificate, if applicable. Must be in active status.
Required from LLC, Corporations, Non-Profit, Private, Partnership, Ltd, S-Corp bidders, SB, DVBE, etc. or when applicable.
Copy Certificate of Insurance (refer to insurance requirements), if applicable.
Must be in active status.
Non-Profit, Private, Partnership, Ltd, S-Corp bidders, SB, DVBE, etc. or when applicable.
Copy of 501(c)(3) designation or proof of nonprofit status (i.e. IRS determination letter), if applicable.
Must be in active status.
Required for non-profits 501c3.
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
Copy of registration with California’s Secretary of State, if applicable. Must be in active status.
Non-Profit, Private, Partnership, Ltd, S-Corp bidders, SB, DVBE, etc. or when applicable.
PROPOSAL PACKAGE
REQUIREMENTS (not to exceed 10 pages excluding the Cost Worksheet)
INCLUDED
WITH BID
PACKAGE?
(Y / N)
EVALUATOR’S NOTES
(CAC use only)
Proposal Narrative
Team Description and Roles
Work Examples
Detailed Timeline
References (at least two references) Company Name, Contact Person(s), Email Address(es) and Telephone Number(s).
WILL BE VERIFIED DURING
REVIEW/EVALUATION
(CAC only)
RESULT / NOTES
(CAC use only)
CAC only Bidder must be in good standing with California’s Secretary of State, if applicable.
CAC only Must not have negative contractor evaluation on file with DGS/OLS.
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
Refer to PCC section 10371 and SCM Volume 1, section 3.02.3, if applicable.
CAC only Prohibition on Tax Delinquency: Vendor must not be listed as a tax delinquent with the Franchise Tax Board and/or Department of Tax and Fee Administration, if applicable.
CAC only CUF Evaluation and Determination Worksheet
– Will be completed by CAC for bidder and/or each subcontractor(s) listed on Bidder Declaration GSPD-05- 105, as needed.
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/- /media/Divisions/PD/OSDS/Certification/CUF/CUFEvaluationandDeterminationWorksheet.pdf?la=e n&hash=7C4EB3152024272CB12D716A34A30FD758DDC7FB
CAC only SB/Micro/DVBE and 501(c)(3) status – must be in active status.
CAC only Bidder has a base in or is based in California--have a physical presence in the State.
Will use the following documents to confirm but not limited to: Payee Data Records STD 204 and Business License.
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/PD/OSDS/Certification/CUF/CUFEvaluationandDeterminationWorksheet.pdf?la=en&hash=7C4EB3152024272CB12D716A34A30FD758DDC7FB https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/PD/OSDS/Certification/CUF/CUFEvaluationandDeterminationWorksheet.pdf?la=en&hash=7C4EB3152024272CB12D716A34A30FD758DDC7FB https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/PD/OSDS/Certification/CUF/CUFEvaluationandDeterminationWorksheet.pdf?la=en&hash=7C4EB3152024272CB12D716A34A30FD758DDC7FB
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
CAC only Copy of Insurance may be reviewed by ORIM of DGS, if applicable. Must be in active status.
Meets the State’s minimum insurance requirements.
CAC only CAC may verify potential conflict of interest, as needed.
Refer to Attachment 12 – Contractor Certification Clauses
CCC 04/2017.
CAC only GenAI Notification Clause: CAC may confirm with Chief Information Officer (CIO) that the purchase or contract may proceed.
CIOs are required to conduct a risk assessment and potential consultation with California Dept of Technology (CDT).
Refer to Attachment 13 – GenAI Notification Clause.
SUMMARY: All required documents per RFP-24-004 were submitted with the bid package? _____ YES _____ NO
If yes, the bidder passes Phase 1: Administrative Criteria, then this Bidder can proceed to Phase 2.
BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council
EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous
PHASE 2: TECHNICAL CRITERIA (MAXIMUM 420 POINTS)
Please refer to Phase Two: Technical Criteria using the Scoring Rubric.
Technical Criteria points will be cumulative.
For example, if there are three (3) evaluators in the Evaluation Committee, the bidder will receive the sum of the total points.
Evaluator 1: 140
Evaluator 2: 130
Evaluator 3: 135
Cumulative Points = 405
PHASE THREE: COST POINTS (MAXIMUM 60 POINTS)
Cost Points Formula = [Lowest Cost / Bidder’s Cost] x Maximum Points
The responsive and responsible bidder with the lowest cost will receive the maximum 60 points.
Other bidders are based on Cost Points Formula.
When points have a decimal, the points will be rounded to the nearest thousandth, if needed.
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
Max 25
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.
Proposal Requirements:
Projective Narrative, Team Description and
Roles, Work Examples, Detailed Timeline, References, Cost
Proposal
Quality of
Proposed
Project
Max 60 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.
Demonstr ates
Quality in Past Work
Max 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.
Item 1:
Cumulative
Item 2:
Cumulative
Item 3:
Cumulative
Proposal Requirements:
Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work
Examples, Detailed Timeline, References, Cost Proposal
Proposal Requirements:
Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work
Examples, Detailed Timeline, References, Cost Proposal
Evaluator's Name: _____________________
Evaluation Date: _________________
Bidder's Name: _________________________
RFP No.: RFP-24-004
Pages 1 of 2
Score Given:
Score Given:
Score Given:
PHASE TWO: TECHNICAL CRITERIA (Scoring Rubric)
Carla Pareja Highlight
Carla Pareja Highlight
Alignment of Values
Max 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.
Realistic
Resource Allocation
Max 15 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.
Accuracy and
Overall Presentati on of the
Proposal
Max 5 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.
Cost of Proposal Max 60 Scores are determined by a standard formula and are therefore not assigned by the Evaluation Committee. Cost Worksheet
Item 4:
Cumulative
Item 5:
Cumulative
Item 6:
Cumulative
PHASE THREE
Not Cumulative
Evaluator's Name: _____________________
Evaluation Date: _________________
TECHNICAL CRITERIA (cumulative):
Evaluator 1: 140 points (Item 1 - 6) Evaluator 2: 135 points (Item 1 - 6) Evaluator 3: 130 points (Item 1 - 6)
Proposal Requirements:
Projective Narrative, Team Description and
Roles, Work Examples, Detailed Timeline, References, Cost Proposal
Proposal Requirements:
Projective Narrative, Team Description and Roles, Work
Examples, Detailed Timeline, References, Cost Proposal
Proposal Requirements:
Projective Narrative, Team Description and
Roles, Work Examples, Detailed Timeline, References, Cost
Proposal
Pages 2 of 2
Bidder's Name: _____________________
RFP No.: RFP-24-004
Cost Points Formula:
[Lowest Cost / Bidder's Cost] x Maximum Points = Cost Points The bidder with the lowest cost will receive the maximum (60) points.
Score Given:
Score Given:
Score Given:
Cost Points for Bidder: __________ (not cumulative)
PHASE TWO: TECHNICAL CRITERIA (SCORING RUBRIC) - Continued
Carla Pareja Highlight
Carla Pareja Highlight
Carla Pareja Highlight
RFP No.: RFP-24-00 Bidder gets 405 points for the Technical Criteria
| Phase Two - Technical Criteria Scoring Rubric.pdf |
| Blank Page |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .