Bid Conference Phase II Innovation Challenge power point revised.ppt
PPT presentation 1 MB Posted
- Opportunity number
- MCC-16-RFA-0001
- Issued by
-
Millennium Challenge Corporation
About this file
Power Point presentation
View the file
Other files
Show all 29
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
January 13, 2015 15:00 East Africa Time US Embassy - Tanzania
Data Collaboratives for Local Impact
Data for Local Impact Innovation Challenge Phase II Bid Conference
Call-in:
Please e-mail Nataliya Holl at hollna@mcc.gov for a number to call in
GROUND RULES:
| The Phase II conference will start on time at 15:00 East Africa Time |
| The conference is both in-person and over the phone |
| Conference Line |
| Please mute your phone (do not place on hold) when not speaking |
| Please speak slowly and clearly |
We will attempt to answer as many questions as possible. You may submit questions after the conference via email to hollna@mcc.gov until January 14, 2015, 5 pm (Tanzania time) . We will post answers to questions asked during and after these calls on www.grants.gov in a form of amendment.
Agenda
| Introduction to Phase II |
| Focus on entrepreneurs |
| Data4DREAMS |
| Key takeaways from Phase I |
| NOFO Updates |
| Explanation of changes in Amendment |
| Focus on Submission Template & Scoring Criteria |
| Applications instructions submission Overview w/ Contracts Team |
| Questions / Open Discussion |
| Next Steps |
| In-Person Presentations |
| Deadlines for Phase II |
Partnerships and Interest
| Firms / Organizations Expressing Interest in Co-Lab Implementation | |
| Center for Health System Solutions | Internews |
| Deloitte | Kenya Heath Informatics Association |
| Department of Better Technology | Open Data Institute |
| Development Gateway | Palladium |
| Esri Eastern Africa | Premise |
| ICON-Institut Public Sector GmbH | SmartDecision Company Ltd. |
Updates – Template Clarification There will be two separate submissions:
| Technical Application, and |
| Cost/Business Application |
The recommended template for the Technical Application is:
| Cover Page (1 page limit) |
| Executive Summary (3 page limit) |
| Technical Approach (30 page limit) |
| Appendices (50 page limit) |
Updates – Scoring Criteria
Section One
Original:
Revised:
Innovation Challenge
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in designing and administering grant and/or prizes programs (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
i. designing and administering innovation challenge competitions, grant and/or prize programs (with a preference for data or technology-related challenges) 15
ii. Managing grant and/or prize funds consistent with stringent fiscal accountability standards, and designing and developing state-of-the-art online platform to engage applicants and automate the application process (entry, sorting, screening, and ranking) 15
iii. Demonstrated language capacity and experience (English & Swahili) 2.5
iv. Experience working with large data sets and using data to influence development work 2.5
v. demonstrated IT experience (given the requirement to establish an innovation challenge platform and online presence and to evaluate IT-focused grant/prize proposals) 2.5
vi. demonstrated degree of innovation and creativity to similar development challenges and opportunities 2.5
2. Past Performance (60 pts) 60
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
i. quality of product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partner and subcontractors in resolving clients' problems 10
ii. Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 10
iii. Timeliness of performance, including adherence to agreed workplans and schedules and other time-sensitive program/project conditions, and effectiveness of management staff to make prompt decisions and ensure efficient operation of tasks. 10
iv. Customer satisfaction, including satisfactory business relationship to clients, initiation and management of several complex activities/tasks simultaneously, coordination among subcontractors and developing country partners, prompt and satisfactory correction of problems, and cooperative attitude in solving clients' problems 10
v. track record of key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 10
vi. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 10
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100
1. Professional qualifications of the proposed team and consortium subgrantees/subcontractors 50 0 30
| a. Soundness and adequacy of the overall staffing plan and allocation of responsibilities and | |||
| amount of time allocation for key personnel effectively and efficiently achieve objectives . | 25 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 15 | 10 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | |||
| complement the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 | 10 |
2. Technical management and institutional capability 40 0 60
The Applicant’s understanding of, and ability to, meet the requirements of this PD will be evaluated based on the soundness of the proposed approaches and strategies to achieve the PD’s scope, tasks and deliverables. Responsiveness to each of the items below will be taken into consideration.
| a. Soundness of the proposed innovative ideas and technological solutions to achieve the PD’s | |||
| requirements | 10 | 20 |
| b. Feasibility of the management strategies and established administrative approaches (e.g., | |||
| plan, structure, policies and practices) | 10 | 5 |
c. Soundness of the proposed Draft Workplan 10 20
| d. Realism and effectiveness of the rapid start-up plan of the Project and plan(s) for rapid | |||
| response to requests | 5 | 5 |
| e. . Realism and effectiveness of the Collaboration Plan(s) for how the Applicant will work with | |||
| all partners | 5 | 10 |
3. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 100 0 100
Co-Lab
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in Designing and Managing Co-Working Spaces, Think-do-Tanks, and/or Training Centres (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
a. Demonstrated ability to design and implement co-working, co-creation, think-do-tanks, innovation centers /incubators and/or training centers (with a preference for data or technology-related programs) 20
b. Demonstrated capacity to establish, equip and maintain functional IT systems equipment (5) in support of programs outlined in (a) above including efficient training, analytics and programming (10 points) 10
c. Demonstrated experience in working with a diverse group of stakeholders, to include local/national government, civil society, the private sector, and international organizations 5
d. Demonstrated experience managing partnerships and/or collaborations in East Africa 5
2. Past Performance (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
a. Proven consistency of quality of programs and achievements, including stability in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partners and its associates in resolving programmatic challenges 15
b. Established cost and expenditures control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 15
c. Proven track record of stable key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 5
d. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 5
3. Demonstrated Local Content Strategy (20 pts) 20
a. Demonstrated local content strategy 20
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100 100
1. Professional qualifications of the proposed team and consortium subgrantees/subcontractors 40 0 15
| a. Soundness and adequacy of the overall staffing plan and allocation of responsibilities and | |||
| amount of time allocation for key personnel effectively and efficiently achieve objectives . | 20 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 10 | 5 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | |||
| compliment the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 | 0 |
2. Technical management and institutional capability 40 0 60
The Applicant’s understanding of, and ability to, meet the requirements of this PD will be evaluated based on the soundness of the proposed approaches and strategies to achieve the PD’s scope, tasks and deliverables. Responsiveness to each of the items below will be taken into consideration.
| a. Soundness of the proposed innovative ideas and technological solutions to achieve the PD’s | |||
| requirements | 10 | 10 |
| b. Feasibility of the management strategies and established administrative approaches (e.g., | |||
| plan, structure, policies and practices) | 10 | 5 |
c. Soundness of the proposed Draft Workplan 10 20
| d. Realism and effectiveness of the rapid start-up plan of the Project and plan(s) for rapid | |||
| response to requests | 5 | 10 |
| e. . Realism and effectiveness of the Collaboration Plan(s) for how the Applicant will work with | |||
| all partners | 5 | 15 |
3. Cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 10
4. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 0 5
a. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 5
5. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 100 0 100
Delete
Modify
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in designing and administering grant and/or prizes programs (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
i. designing and administering innovation challenge competitions, grant and/or prize programs (with a preference for data or technology-related challenges) 15
ii. Managing grant and/or prize funds consistent with stringent fiscal accountability standards, and designing and developing state-of-the-art online platform to engage applicants and automate the application process (entry, sorting, screening, and ranking) 15
iii. Demonstrated language capacity and experience (English & Swahili) 2.5
iv. Experience working with large data sets and using data to influence development work 2.5
v. demonstrated IT experience (given the requirement to establish an innovation challenge platform and online presence and to evaluate IT-focused grant/prize proposals) 2.5
vi. demonstrated degree of innovation and creativity to similar development challenges and opportunities 2.5
2. Past Performance (60 pts) 60
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
i. quality of product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partner and subcontractors in resolving clients' problems 10
ii. Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 10
iii. Timeliness of performance, including adherence to agreed workplans and schedules and other time-sensitive program/project conditions, and effectiveness of management staff to make prompt decisions and ensure efficient operation of tasks. 10
iv. Customer satisfaction, including satisfactory business relationship to clients, initiation and management of several complex activities/tasks simultaneously, coordination among subcontractors and developing country partners, prompt and satisfactory correction of problems, and cooperative attitude in solving clients' problems 10
v. track record of key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 10
vi. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 10
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100
1. Professional Qualifications of the Proposed Integrated Team 30 0 30
| a. Composition, experience and qualification of proposed integrated team, especially key | |||
| personnel, of both the lead applicant and consortia members | 15 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 15 | 10 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | ||
| complement the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 |
2. Technical management and institutional capability 40 0 60
The Applicant’s understanding of, and ability to, meet the requirements of this PD will be evaluated based on the soundness of the proposed approaches and strategies to achieve the PD’s scope, tasks and deliverables. Responsiveness to each of the items below will be taken into consideration.
| a. Soundness of the proposed innovative ideas and technological solutions to achieve the PD’s | |||
| requirements | 10 | 20 |
| b. Feasibility of the management strategies and established administrative approaches (e.g., | |||
| plan, structure, policies and practices) | 10 | 5 |
c. Soundness of the proposed Draft Workplan 10 20
| d. Realism and effectiveness of the rapid start-up plan of the Project and plan(s) for rapid | |||
| response to requests | 5 | 5 |
| e. . Realism and effectiveness of the Collaboration Plan(s) for how the Applicant will work with | |||
| all partners | 5 | 10 |
3. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 80 0 100
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in Designing and Managing Co-Working Spaces, Think-do-Tanks, and/or Training Centres (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
a. Demonstrated ability to design and implement co-working, co-creation, think-do-tanks, innovation centers /incubators and/or training centers (with a preference for data or technology-related programs) 20
b. Demonstrated capacity to establish, equip and maintain functional IT systems equipment (5) in support of programs outlined in (a) above including efficient training, analytics and programming (10 points) 10
c. Demonstrated experience in working with a diverse group of stakeholders, to include local/national government, civil society, the private sector, and international organizations 5
d. Demonstrated experience managing partnerships and/or collaborations in East Africa 5
2. Past Performance (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
a. Proven consistency of quality of programs and achievements, including stability in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partners and its associates in resolving programmatic challenges 15
b. Established cost and expenditures control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 15
c. Proven track record of stable key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 5
d. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 5
3. Demonstrated Local Content Strategy (20 pts) 20
a. Demonstrated local content strategy 20
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100 100
1. Professional qualifications of the proposed team and consortium subgrantees/subcontractors 40 0 15
| a. Soundness and adequacy of the overall staffing plan and allocation of responsibilities and | |||
| amount of time allocation for key personnel effectively and efficiently achieve objectives . | 20 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 10 | 5 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | |||
| compliment the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 | 0 |
2. Technical management and institutional capability 40 0 60
The Applicant’s understanding of, and ability to, meet the requirements of this PD will be evaluated based on the soundness of the proposed approaches and strategies to achieve the PD’s scope, tasks and deliverables. Responsiveness to each of the items below will be taken into consideration.
| a. Soundness of the proposed innovative ideas and technological solutions to achieve the PD’s | |||
| requirements | 10 | 10 |
| b. Feasibility of the management strategies and established administrative approaches (e.g., | |||
| plan, structure, policies and practices) | 10 | 5 |
c. Soundness of the proposed Draft Workplan 10 20
| d. Realism and effectiveness of the rapid start-up plan of the Project and plan(s) for rapid | |||
| response to requests | 5 | 10 |
| e. . Realism and effectiveness of the Collaboration Plan(s) for how the Applicant will work with | |||
| all partners | 5 | 15 |
3. Cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 10
4. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 0 5
a. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 5
5. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 100 0 100
Delete
Modify
Section Two
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in designing and administering grant and/or prizes programs (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
i. designing and administering innovation challenge competitions, grant and/or prize programs (with a preference for data or technology-related challenges) 15
ii. Managing grant and/or prize funds consistent with stringent fiscal accountability standards, and designing and developing state-of-the-art online platform to engage applicants and automate the application process (entry, sorting, screening, and ranking) 15
iii. Demonstrated language capacity and experience (English & Swahili) 2.5
iv. Experience working with large data sets and using data to influence development work 2.5
v. demonstrated IT experience (given the requirement to establish an innovation challenge platform and online presence and to evaluate IT-focused grant/prize proposals) 2.5
vi. demonstrated degree of innovation and creativity to similar development challenges and opportunities 2.5
2. Past Performance (60 pts) 60
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
i. quality of product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partner and subcontractors in resolving clients' problems 10
ii. Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 10
iii. Timeliness of performance, including adherence to agreed workplans and schedules and other time-sensitive program/project conditions, and effectiveness of management staff to make prompt decisions and ensure efficient operation of tasks. 10
iv. Customer satisfaction, including satisfactory business relationship to clients, initiation and management of several complex activities/tasks simultaneously, coordination among subcontractors and developing country partners, prompt and satisfactory correction of problems, and cooperative attitude in solving clients' problems 10
v. track record of key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 10
vi. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 10
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100
1. Professional Qualifications of the Proposed Integrated Team 30 0 30
| a. Composition, experience and qualification of proposed integrated team, especially key | |||
| personnel, of both the lead applicant and consortia members | 15 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 15 | 10 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | ||
| complement the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 |
2. Technical management and institutional capability 40 0 60
| a. Soundness of the proposed innovative ideas and technological solutions to achieve the PD’s | |||
| requirements | 10 | 20 |
| b. Feasibility of the management strategies and established administrative approaches (e.g., | |||
| plan, structure, policies and practices) | 10 | 5 |
c. Soundness of the proposed Draft Workplan 10 20
| d. Realism and effectiveness of the rapid start-up plan of the Project and plan(s) for rapid | |||
| response to requests | 5 | 5 |
| e. . Realism and effectiveness of the Collaboration Plan(s) for how the Applicant will work with | |||
| all partners | 5 | 10 |
3. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 80 0 100
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in Designing and Managing Co-Working Spaces, Think-do-Tanks, and/or Training Centres (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
a. Demonstrated ability to design and implement co-working, co-creation, think-do-tanks, innovation centers /incubators and/or training centers (with a preference for data or technology-related programs) 20
b. Demonstrated capacity to establish, equip and maintain functional IT systems equipment (5) in support of programs outlined in (a) above including efficient training, analytics and programming (10 points) 10
c. Demonstrated experience in working with a diverse group of stakeholders, to include local/national government, civil society, the private sector, and international organizations 5
d. Demonstrated experience managing partnerships and/or collaborations in East Africa 5
2. Past Performance (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
a. Proven consistency of quality of programs and achievements, including stability in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partners and its associates in resolving programmatic challenges 15
b. Established cost and expenditures control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 15
c. Proven track record of stable key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 5
d. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 5
3. Demonstrated Local Content Strategy (20 pts) 20
a. Demonstrated local content strategy 20
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100 100
1. Professional qualifications of the proposed team and consortium subgrantees/subcontractors 40 0 15
| a. Soundness and adequacy of the overall staffing plan and allocation of responsibilities and | |||
| amount of time allocation for key personnel effectively and efficiently achieve objectives . | 20 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 10 | 5 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | |||
| compliment the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 | 0 |
2. Technical management and institutional capability 40 0 60
The Applicant’s understanding of, and ability to, meet the requirements of this PD will be evaluated based on the soundness of the proposed approaches and strategies to achieve the PD’s scope, tasks and deliverables. Responsiveness to each of the items below will be taken into consideration.
| a. Soundness of the proposed innovative ideas and technological solutions to achieve the PD’s | |||
| requirements | 10 | 10 |
| b. Feasibility of the management strategies and established administrative approaches (e.g., | |||
| plan, structure, policies and practices) | 10 | 5 |
c. Soundness of the proposed Draft Workplan 10 20
| d. Realism and effectiveness of the rapid start-up plan of the Project and plan(s) for rapid | |||
| response to requests | 5 | 10 |
| e. . Realism and effectiveness of the Collaboration Plan(s) for how the Applicant will work with | |||
| all partners | 5 | 15 |
3. Cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 10
4. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 0 5
a. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 5
5. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 100 0 100
Delete
Modify
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in designing and administering grant and/or prizes programs (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
i. designing and administering innovation challenge competitions, grant and/or prize programs (with a preference for data or technology-related challenges) 15
ii. Managing grant and/or prize funds consistent with stringent fiscal accountability standards, and designing and developing state-of-the-art online platform to engage applicants and automate the application process (entry, sorting, screening, and ranking) 15
iii. Demonstrated language capacity and experience (English & Swahili) 2.5
iv. Experience working with large data sets and using data to influence development work 2.5
v. demonstrated IT experience (given the requirement to establish an innovation challenge platform and online presence and to evaluate IT-focused grant/prize proposals) 2.5
vi. demonstrated degree of innovation and creativity to similar development challenges and opportunities 2.5
2. Past Performance (60 pts) 60
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
i. quality of product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partner and subcontractors in resolving clients' problems 10
ii. Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 10
iii. Timeliness of performance, including adherence to agreed workplans and schedules and other time-sensitive program/project conditions, and effectiveness of management staff to make prompt decisions and ensure efficient operation of tasks. 10
iv. Customer satisfaction, including satisfactory business relationship to clients, initiation and management of several complex activities/tasks simultaneously, coordination among subcontractors and developing country partners, prompt and satisfactory correction of problems, and cooperative attitude in solving clients' problems 10
v. track record of key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 10
vi. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 10
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100
1. Professional Qualifications of the Proposed Integrated Team 30 0 30
| a. Composition, experience and qualification of proposed integrated team, especially key | |||
| personnel, of both the lead applicant and consortia members | 15 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 15 | 10 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | ||
| complement the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 |
2. Technical and Managerial Strategy and Workplan 35 0 45
a. Proposed strategy, innovative ideas, technological solutions and approach to rapidly launch the Data for Local Innovation Challenge while leveraging integrated knowledge and experience of integrated team -- and demonstrating understanding of program logic, target outcomes and milestones outlined in NOFO Section A 10 20
b. Quality and completeness of draft work plan, integrating and building on tasks included in the program description and target results/expectations, deliverables and critical target milestones (NOFO Section A) while tying outcomes to beneficial impact in Tanzania, Kenya and the region. Significant weight will be given the Applicants ability to launch Section E, Page 2 the first competition by May 2016 so as to select the first group of grantees by June 2016. 15 5
| c. Strategy for branding, outreach and communications to reach target community, | |||
| including grantee community building | 10 | 20 |
3. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 75 0 85
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in Designing and Managing Co-Working Spaces, Think-do-Tanks, and/or Training Centres (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
a. Demonstrated ability to design and implement co-working, co-creation, think-do-tanks, innovation centers /incubators and/or training centers (with a preference for data or technology-related programs) 20
b. Demonstrated capacity to establish, equip and maintain functional IT systems equipment (5) in support of programs outlined in (a) above including efficient training, analytics and programming (10 points) 10
c. Demonstrated experience in working with a diverse group of stakeholders, to include local/national government, civil society, the private sector, and international organizations 5
d. Demonstrated experience managing partnerships and/or collaborations in East Africa 5
2. Past Performance (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
a. Proven consistency of quality of programs and achievements, including stability in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partners and its associates in resolving programmatic challenges 15
b. Established cost and expenditures control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 15
c. Proven track record of stable key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 5
d. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 5
3. Demonstrated Local Content Strategy (20 pts) 20
a. Demonstrated local content strategy 20
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100 100
1. Professional qualifications of the proposed team and consortium subgrantees/subcontractors 40 0 15
| a. Soundness and adequacy of the overall staffing plan and allocation of responsibilities and | |||
| amount of time allocation for key personnel effectively and efficiently achieve objectives . | 20 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 10 | 5 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | |||
| compliment the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 | 0 |
2. Technical management and institutional capability 40 0 60
The Applicant’s understanding of, and ability to, meet the requirements of this PD will be evaluated based on the soundness of the proposed approaches and strategies to achieve the PD’s scope, tasks and deliverables. Responsiveness to each of the items below will be taken into consideration.
| a. Soundness of the proposed innovative ideas and technological solutions to achieve the PD’s | |||
| requirements | 10 | 10 |
| b. Feasibility of the management strategies and established administrative approaches (e.g., | |||
| plan, structure, policies and practices) | 10 | 5 |
c. Soundness of the proposed Draft Workplan 10 20
| d. Realism and effectiveness of the rapid start-up plan of the Project and plan(s) for rapid | |||
| response to requests | 5 | 10 |
| e. . Realism and effectiveness of the Collaboration Plan(s) for how the Applicant will work with | |||
| all partners | 5 | 15 |
3. Cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 10
4. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 0 5
a. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 5
5. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 100 0 100
Delete
Modify
Section Three
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in designing and administering grant and/or prizes programs (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
i. designing and administering innovation challenge competitions, grant and/or prize programs (with a preference for data or technology-related challenges) 15
ii. Managing grant and/or prize funds consistent with stringent fiscal accountability standards, and designing and developing state-of-the-art online platform to engage applicants and automate the application process (entry, sorting, screening, and ranking) 15
iii. Demonstrated language capacity and experience (English & Swahili) 2.5
iv. Experience working with large data sets and using data to influence development work 2.5
v. demonstrated IT experience (given the requirement to establish an innovation challenge platform and online presence and to evaluate IT-focused grant/prize proposals) 2.5
vi. demonstrated degree of innovation and creativity to similar development challenges and opportunities 2.5
2. Past Performance (60 pts) 60
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
i. quality of product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partner and subcontractors in resolving clients' problems 10
ii. Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 10
iii. Timeliness of performance, including adherence to agreed workplans and schedules and other time-sensitive program/project conditions, and effectiveness of management staff to make prompt decisions and ensure efficient operation of tasks. 10
iv. Customer satisfaction, including satisfactory business relationship to clients, initiation and management of several complex activities/tasks simultaneously, coordination among subcontractors and developing country partners, prompt and satisfactory correction of problems, and cooperative attitude in solving clients' problems 10
v. track record of key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 10
vi. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 10
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100
1. Professional Qualifications of the Proposed Integrated Team 30 0 30
| a. Composition, experience and qualification of proposed integrated team, especially key | |||
| personnel, of both the lead applicant and consortia members | 15 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 15 | 10 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | ||
| complement the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 |
2. Technical and Managerial Strategy and Workplan 35 0 45
a. Proposed strategy, innovative ideas, technological solutions and approach to rapidly launch the Data for Local Innovation Challenge while leveraging integrated knowledge and experience of integrated team -- and demonstrating understanding of program logic, target outcomes and milestones outlined in NOFO Section A 10 20
b. Quality and completeness of draft work plan, integrating and building on tasks included in the program description and target results/expectations, deliverables and critical target milestones (NOFO Section A) while tying outcomes to beneficial impact in Tanzania, Kenya and the region. Significant weight will be given the Applicants ability to launch Section E, Page 2 the first competition by May 2016 so as to select the first group of grantees by June 2016. 15 5
| c. Strategy for branding, outreach and communications to reach target community, | |||
| including grantee community building | 10 | 20 |
3. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 10 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 75 0 85
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in Designing and Managing Co-Working Spaces, Think-do-Tanks, and/or Training Centres (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
a. Demonstrated ability to design and implement co-working, co-creation, think-do-tanks, innovation centers /incubators and/or training centers (with a preference for data or technology-related programs) 20
b. Demonstrated capacity to establish, equip and maintain functional IT systems equipment (5) in support of programs outlined in (a) above including efficient training, analytics and programming (10 points) 10
c. Demonstrated experience in working with a diverse group of stakeholders, to include local/national government, civil society, the private sector, and international organizations 5
d. Demonstrated experience managing partnerships and/or collaborations in East Africa 5
2. Past Performance (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector. If consortium subgrantees/subcontractors are envisioned, the proposal should also include at least two past performances for the subcontractors including references, per subcontractor, for the last five years detailing work similar in nature to that which would be envisioned for this subcontractor under this PD. References may be with US government agencies, the other international development or donors institutions, NGOs, and/or the private sector.
a. Proven consistency of quality of programs and achievements, including stability in meeting goals and targets, and cooperation and effectiveness of the implementing partners and its associates in resolving programmatic challenges 15
b. Established cost and expenditures control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting 15
c. Proven track record of stable key personnel including effectiveness and appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems were identified 5
d. The relevancy of the work performed under the program/project and past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current 5
3. Demonstrated Local Content Strategy (20 pts) 20
a. Demonstrated local content strategy 20
Phase I Total Points Awarded 100
Original Proposed AR JC MB
Co-Lab Scoring Sheet - Phase II 100 100 100 100 100
1. Professional qualifications of the proposed team and consortium subgrantees/subcontractors 40 0 15
| a. Soundness and adequacy of the overall staffing plan and allocation of responsibilities and | |||
| amount of time allocation for key personnel effectively and efficiently achieve objectives . | 20 | 10 |
| b. Demonstrated level of all other proposed personnel qualifications and experience to | |||
| effectively manage the Project and provide quality control | 10 | 5 |
| c. Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed consortium partners skills and experience to | |||
| compliment the prime institutional capacity to implement the Project | 10 | 0 |
2. Technical management and institutional capability 40 0 60
The Applicant’s understanding of, and ability to, meet the requirements of this PD will be evaluated based on the soundness of the proposed approaches and strategies to achieve the PD’s scope, tasks and deliverables. Responsiveness to each of the items below will be taken into consideration.
| a. Soundness of the proposed innovative ideas and technological solutions to achieve the PD’s | |||
| requirements | 10 | 10 |
| b. Feasibility of the management strategies and established administrative approaches (e.g., | |||
| plan, structure, policies and practices) | 10 | 5 |
c. Soundness of the proposed Draft Workplan 10 20
| d. Realism and effectiveness of the rapid start-up plan of the Project and plan(s) for rapid | |||
| response to requests | 5 | 10 |
| e. . Realism and effectiveness of the Collaboration Plan(s) for how the Applicant will work with | |||
| all partners | 5 | 15 |
3. Cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 0 10
a. Demonstrated cost realism and completeness of the proposed notional budget 10 10
4. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 0 5
a. Demonstrated local presence and knowledge 5 5
5. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 0 10
a. Demonstrated gender and social inclusion 5 10
Phase II Total Points Awarded 100 0 100
Delete
Modify
Innovation Challenge Scoring Sheet - Phase I 100
1. Experience in designing and administering grant and/or prizes programs (40 pts) 40
Applicants will provide a narrative that details past technical and management experience in:
i. designing and administering innovation challenge competitions, grant and/or prize programs (with a preference for data or technology-related challenges) 15
ii. Managing grant and/or prize funds consistent with stringent fiscal accountability standards, and designing and developing state-of-the-art online platform to engage applicants and automate the application process (entry, sorting, screening, and ranking) 15
iii. Demonstrated language capacity and experience (English & Swahili) 2.5
iv. Experience working with large data sets and using data to influence development work 2.5
v. demonstrated IT experience (given the requirement to establish an innovation challenge platform and online presence and to evaluate IT-focused grant/prize proposals) 2.5
vi. demonstrated degree of innovation and creativity to similar development challenges and opportunities 2.5
2. Past Performance (60 pts) 60
Applicants will provide at least three past performance forms including references for the last five years on contracts/works similar in nature to this award with US government agencies, international development or donor institutions, international non-government organizations (NGOs) or the private sector.
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.