RFP_-_Scoring_Rubric.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- California Brand Campaign
- Solicitation number
- 0000037787
- Issued by
- California
About this file
This is a scoring rubric for an RFP issued by GO-Biz (California Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development) for a California Brand Campaign. The rubric establishes evaluation criteria and point allocations across seven capability categories totaling 100 possible points. Evaluation categories include Agency Experience and Expertise (10 points), Understanding of California Economy (15 points), Strategic Vision, Brand Strategy & Narrative Development (15 points), Creative and Media Strategies and Production (15 points), Data and Measurement (10 points), Budget, Cost Effectiveness, and Value (30 points), and Overall Proposal Quality & Project Speed (5 points). The project scope encompasses website design and development, digital content creation, video production, and integrated earned and paid media strategies to execute a data-driven brand campaign for the State of California.
The scoring rubric provides detailed performance thresholds for each evaluation criterion, progressing from minimal capability at the lowest score levels to exceptional performance at the highest levels. The Budget, Cost Effectiveness, and Value category carries the highest point value at 30 points, with scoring guidance indicating that cost effectiveness may be evaluated separately from cost points as permitted under state contracting guidelines. The rubric emphasizes evaluation of proposers' relevant experience with measurable outcomes, understanding of California's economic landscape and industries, strategic innovation and narrative development, creative excellence with platform adaptability, analytical and measurement capabilities, budget justification and ROI strategy, and project timeline feasibility and operational readiness. The RFP has closed and a Notice of Intent to Award has been issued.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| STD_21-_drug_free.pdf | ||
| Darfur.pdf | ||
| STD._204_2021.pdf | ||
| GO-Biz_Branding_RFP_-_UPDATED_3.6.26.pdf | ||
| Bidder_Declaration.pdf | ||
| CCC_Fillable.pdf | ||
| UPDATED_Brand_Campaign_-_RFP_Questions_3.5.26.pdf | ||
| California_Brand_Campaign_-_Budget_Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation_IFB_26-0011-IFB.pdf |
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
Sheet1
APPLICANT NAME
FOLDER LINK
| CAPABILITY | Scoring Guidelines | Points Possible | Score | Comments |
| 1) Agency Experience and Expertise | Score 0-2: Firm demonstrates minimal or no relevant experience. Case studies lack measurable results. Key personnel qualifications are insufficient for scope. Subcontractor expertise is unclear or irrelevant. Limited or no experience in economic development, tourism, or California-specific industries. No demonstrated ability to execute under compressed timelines. |
Score 3-5: Firm has some relevant experience but portfolio is limited in scale, complexity, or relevance. Case studies show partial alignment but lack strong outcomes. Key personnel have moderate qualifications. Limited California-specific expertise. Execution under tight deadlines is asserted but not substantiated.
Score 6-8: Firm demonstrates strong, relevant experience with measurable outcomes. Case studies clearly align with scope. Key team members are well-qualified and experienced. Subcontractors (if applicable) add clear value. Demonstrated experience in economic development, tourism, and/or California industries. Proven ability to execute efficiently under demanding timelines.
| Score 9-10: Firm exhibits exceptional, highly relevant experience with strong measurable results. Case studies demonstrate strategic impact and scalability. Key personnel are exceptionally qualified and directly aligned with project needs. Subcontractors bring specialized expertise that enhances overall capability. Deep knowledge of California’s economy and industries. Clear evidence of delivering high-impact campaigns under accelerated timelines. | 10 | 0 | |
| 2) Understanding of California Economy | Score 0-3: Limited understanding of California’s economic landscape. Minimal awareness of economic development or visitation objectives. Brand analysis is superficial or absent. |
Score 4-7: General understanding of California’s economic strengths and cultural identity. Some reference to economic development goals. Brand assessment is present but lacks depth or actionable insight..
Score 8-12: Strong understanding of California’s economic drivers, industries, and competitive advantages. Clear articulation of economic development and business expansion objectives. Provides thoughtful brand evaluation and identifies realistic improvement opportunities.
| Score 13-15: Sophisticated, nuanced understanding of California’s economy, industry clusters, and cultural identity. Aligns brand strategy with state economic development priorities in a compelling way. Provides insightful critique of current brand positioning with strategic, forward-thinking improvement recommendations. | 15 | ||
| 3) Strategic Vision, Brand Strategy & Narrative Development | Score 0–3: Vision is unclear, generic, or not aligned with objectives. Lacks actionable plan. Messaging is inconsistent or underdeveloped. Campaign structure is weak or incomplete. |
Score 4–7: Strategy shows promise but lacks innovation or clarity in execution. Plan is moderately actionable but missing detail. Messaging is directionally sound but not compelling or differentiated.
Score 8–12: Clear, innovative strategic vision that effectively highlights California’s strengths. Actionable roadmap with defined campaign architecture. Messaging is cohesive and aligned with stakeholder objectives.
| Score 13–15: Highly compelling, differentiated strategic vision. Demonstrates deep narrative development with strong emotional and economic positioning. Campaign architecture is comprehensive and scalable. Messaging is refined, cohesive, and adaptable across stakeholders and platforms. | 15 | ||
| 4) Creative and Media Strategies and Production | Score 0–3: Creative approach lacks originality or quality. Limited adaptability for multiple platforms. Media strategy is vague or incomplete. Audience strategy is underdeveloped. |
Score 4–7: Creative direction is competent but conventional. Some flexibility across platforms. Media plan is outlined but lacks sophistication. Audience segmentation is basic.
Score 8–12: High-quality creative concepts with strong platform adaptability. Media strategy integrates earned and paid channels effectively. Audience mapping is thoughtful and data-informed. Demonstrates agility and modular content development.
| Score 13–15: Exceptional creative excellence with distinctive, high-impact concepts. Highly agile, modular content strategy adaptable across diverse audiences and channels. Advanced earned and paid media integration with precise audience mapping and sophisticated channel planning. | 15 | ||
| 5) Data and Measurement | Score 0–2: Measurement approach is unclear or insufficient. Limited analytics capability. No clear optimization or testing methodology. |
Score 3–5: Basic performance metrics identified. Limited strategic insight generation. Testing and optimization processes are mentioned but lack structure.
Score 6–8: Well-defined KPIs aligned with objectives. Strong analytical capabilities. Clear test-and-learn methodology. Demonstrated approach to ongoing optimization and performance improvement.
| Score 9–10: Robust, strategic measurement framework with advanced analytics. Demonstrates ability to generate actionable insights. Sophisticated experimentation methodology. Clear and proven optimization processes tied directly to ROI and campaign refinement. | 10 | |
| 6) Budget, Cost Effectiveness, and Value |
Mariana Guevara: When scoring a proposal, cost/value effectiveness and cost adequacy may be judged, evaluated and awarded points as part of the technical score, but this must be in addition to cost points. GO-Biz will use the suggested formula in SCM Vol 1, 5.25, B to calculate points for cost. Score 0–6: Budget appears unreasonable, poorly justified, or misaligned with scope. Limited value demonstrated relative to cost. ROI approach is unclear.
Score 7–15: Budget is generally reasonable but may lack detailed justification. Value proposition is moderate. ROI strategy is present but not innovative.
Score 16–24: Budget is well-structured and clearly aligned with deliverables. Strong value relative to proposed services. Demonstrates thoughtful allocation of resources and credible ROI strategy.
| Score 25–30: Budget is highly detailed, transparent, and strategically optimized. Demonstrates exceptional value for cost. Innovative resource allocation maximizing impact. Clear, compelling ROI framework tied directly to measurable outcomes. | 30 | ||
| 7) Overall Proposal Quality & Project Speed | Score 0–1: Proposal lacks clarity, organization, or completeness. Timeline is unrealistic or insufficiently detailed. |
Score 2–3: Proposal is generally organized but may lack polish or detail. Timeline is feasible but not optimized for speed or efficiency.
Score 4: Well-organized, comprehensive proposal. Clear and efficient project timeline. Demonstrates readiness and responsiveness.
| Score 5: Exceptional clarity, organization, and professionalism. Timeline demonstrates urgency, efficiency, and operational readiness. Proposal reflects thoughtful attention to RFP requirements and creative problem-solving. | 5 | |||
| TOTAL SCORE | 100 | 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .