Attachment_17_-_Evaluation_Plan___Scoring_Rubric.pdf

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

RFP-24-001

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous Artists Consulting Services

EVALUATION PLAN

The evaluation criteria consist of four main (4) parts: Administrative, Technical, Cost and Interview.

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-24-001.

PHASE EVALUATION IF THIS, THEN

One 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.

The bid(s) that pass this requirement will proceed to Phase 2.

Two The Evaluation Committee will evaluate submission for compliance with the Criteria listed in the Technical Criteria. Cumulative points.

140 max points x 3 evaluators = 420 max points

Three The Evaluation Committee will calculate the cost points per the Cost Criteria. Points will be based on the Cost Points Formula.

60 max points

Four The Evaluation Committee will evaluate the Criteria listed in the Interview Criteria. Cumulative Points.

Further details about the interview portion will be released once the top three bidders are determined. The interview details will be posted in Cal eProcure.

10 max points x 3 evaluators = 30 max points

Total Max Points for Phases: One, Two, Three and Four 510 max points

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

INITIAL RANKING (prior to applying Preference and Incentive Points)

Apply Small Business Preference (if applicable)

Apply DVBE Incentive Points (if applicable)

Adjusted Final Score

FINAL RANKING

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

PHASE ONE: ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA (PASS/FAIL)

A complete bid package will consist of the items identified 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-24-001.

REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED IN

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-

Attachment 4: Small Business Preference Program Statement

Attachment 5: DVBE Participation Incentive Form

Attachment 6: Confidentiality Statement

Attachment 7: Commercially Useful Function (CUF) Certification

Attachment 8: Cost Proposal Worksheet $50K or less? (Y/N)

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

Attachment 9: Darfur Contracting Act

Attachment 10: Workers’ Compensation Certification, if applicable

Required from non-individual or sole proprietor bidders only.

Attachment 11: Individual & Sole Proprietor Statement, if applicable

Required from individual and sole proprietor only.

Attachment 12: Payee Data Record STD 204

Attachment 13: Contractor Certification Clauses CCC/04/2017

Attachment 14: Gen AI Disclosure STD 1000

Attachment 15: DGS PD 843 DVBE Declaration (if prime contractor is DVBE, if applicable)

Required from DVBE bidder or will use DVBE subcontractor(s).

DGS PD 843 DVBE Declaration – Subcontractor #1, if applicable

If prime contractor will use DVBE subcontractor(s).

DGS PD 843 DVBE Declaration – Subcontractor #2, if applicable

If prime contractor will use DVBE subcontractor(s).

Attachment 16: Confirmation Letter Form DVBE Subcontractor – Subcontractor #1

Required from bidder using DVBE subcontractor(s) identified on the Bidder Declaration DGS PD-05- 105.

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

Confirmation Letter Form DVBE Subcontractor – Subcontractor #2

Required from bidder using DVBE subcontractor(s) identified on the Bidder Declaration DGS PD-05- 105.

Reference Attachment 17: Evaluation Plan & Scoring Rubric

Awarded Bidder Only

Attachment 18: Prime Contractor’s Certification DVBE Subcontractor Report STD 817, if applicable and upon completion of the contract

Awarded Bidder only

Attachment 19: Standard Agreement STD 213 (example only)

OTHER REQUIRED BUSINESS

DOCUMENTS

INCLUDED IN

BID PACKAGE?

(Y / N / NA)

CORRECTLY

COMPLETED?

(Y / N / NA)

SIGNED?

(Y / N / NA)

OTHER

Copy of California Certification for SB/Micro and/or DVBE (Prime Contractor), if applicable

Required from SB/SB(micro)/DVBE bidders.

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

California Certification SB/Micro and/or DVBE (Subcontractor), if applicable

Required if using SB/SB(micro)/DVBE subcontractors.

Copy Current Business License(s)/Permits or Business Tax Certificate, if applicable

Required from LLC, Corporations, Non-Profit, Private, Partnership, Ltd, S-Corp bidders.

Copy Certificate of Insurance (refer to insurance requirements), if applicable

Required from LLC, Corporations, Non-Profit, Private, Partnership, Ltd, S-Corp bidders.

Copy of 501(c)(3) designation or proof of nonprofit status (i.e. IRS determination letter), if applicable

Required for non-profits.

Copy of Certification to do Business with California’s Secretary of State, if applicable

Required from LLC, Corporations, Non-Profit, Private, Partnership, Ltd, S-Corp bidders.

PROPOSAL PACKAGE

REQUIREMENTS (not to exceed 10 pages excluding the Cost Worksheet)

INCLUDED IN

BID PACKAGE?

(Y / N)

EVALUATOR’S NOTES

Proposal Narrative

Team Description and Roles

Work Examples

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

Detailed Timeline

References (at least two references) Company Name, Contact Person, Email Address and Telephone Number.

WILL BE VERIFIED DURING

REVIEW/EVALUATION (CAC

ONLY)

RESULT / NOTE

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. Refer to PCC section 10371 and SCM Volume 1, section 3.02.3.

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.

CAC only CUF Evaluation Worksheet – Will be completed by CAC for prime contractor and/or each subcontractor listed on Bidder Declaration GSPD-05-105.

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

CAC only SB/SB-micro/DVBE and 501(c)(3) status – must be current/active

CAC only Bidder is based in California and have a physical presence in the State.

Will use the following documents to confirm, but not limited to:

• Payee Data Records STD 204.

• Business License.

CAC only Copy of Insurance may be reviewed by ORIM of DGS (if applicable).

Meets the State’s minimum insurance requirements.

SUMMARY: All required documents per RFP-24-001 were submitted with the bid package? _____ YES _____ NO

If yes, the bidder passes Phase One: Administrative Criteria. This Bidder can then move to Phase Two.

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

PHASE TWO: TECHNICAL CRITERIA (MAXIMUM 420 POINTS)

Please refer to Phase Two: Technical Criteria 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.

BIDDER NAME: ___________________________ California Arts Council

EVALUATOR NAME: __________________________ Native American & Indigenous

PHASE FOUR: INTERVIEW (MAXIMUM 30 POINTS)

The top three (3) bidders will be invited to a structured interview. Further details of the interview process will be released once the top three (3) are determined. The interview process will be posted on Cal eProcure.

For example, each interviewer can give 10 maximum points. If there are three (3) in the Interview Committee, the bidder will receive the sum of the total points.

Interviewer 1: 10

Interviewer 2: 6

Interviewer 3: 8

Cumulative Points = 24

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-24-001

Pages 1 of 2

Score Given:

Score Given:

Score Given:

PHASE TWO: TECHNICAL CRITERIA (Scoring Rubric)

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) Bidder gets 405 points for the Technical Criteria

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-24-001

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