Sample_Eval_Criteria_and_Rating_Plan.docx
DOCX document 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 2025-RFP-CNH-304
- Issued by
- New Haven County, Connecticut
About this file
This is a sample evaluation criteria and rating plan document designed for use by the City of New Haven, Connecticut, Department of Community Services Administration in evaluating proposals for Request for Proposal 2025-RFP-CNH-304 for essential support services to victims of violence. The RFP seeks qualified organizations to provide trauma-informed, culturally responsive services including emergency and ongoing basic needs assistance such as food, clothing, transportation, temporary housing, safety planning, and connections to community-based resources for victims of firearm-related offenses, domestic violence, sexual violence, and other interpersonal violence, with particular focus on young adults ages 18 to 34. The non-mandatory pre-proposal meeting is scheduled for February 17, 2026, at 1:00 PM, with written questions due by February 24, 2026, at 5:00 PM, and proposal submissions due by March 3, 2026, at 11:00 AM via the City's eProcurement Portal. The contract term is one year with one optional one-year extension subject to the Purchasing Agent's approval, with Mayor approval required if valued at $25,000 or more and Board of Alders approval required if exceeding one year in duration.
The evaluation plan establishes three weighted criteria: Scientific and Technological Merit, Technical Approach, and Technical and Management Capabilities, each assigned a percentage of the total score. Reviewers must independently identify strengths and weaknesses for each criterion and provide written documentation supporting their assessments. The document provides three optional rating scales: Sample A uses adjective ratings (Outstanding, Good, Adequate, Fair, Poor, Unacceptable); Sample B uses color-coded ratings (Blue, Green, Yellow, Red); and Sample C uses numerical scores (10, 8, 5, 2, 0), with descriptive statements defining performance expectations at each rating level. All proposals must be submitted in two separate parts—a technical proposal without pricing and a cost proposal with detailed pricing on a firm, fixed basis. Contractors must maintain general liability insurance of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million combined aggregate, comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance if the contract exceeds $25,000 annually, and adhere to federal American Rescue Plan Act requirements if applicable, including indirect cost caps at 10 percent of the total award and compliance with 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance).
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
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
SAMPLE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATING SCALE
****[This Attachment is included to serve only as a SAMPLE and meant to represent the minimum required information. This Attachment may be modified as necessary to accommodate major/minor strengths/weaknesses, etc.]****
Evaluation Criteria
Each Review member will review independently their assigned Responses using the Individual Rating Sheet and identify individual strengths and weaknesses based on the evaluation criteria (from the Evaluation and Rating Plan) outlined below:
Criterion 1- Scientific and Technological Merit – XX%
· Degree to which proposed technology or methodology meets the stated objectives of the funding opportunity announcement.
· Degree to which the proposed work identifies and/or makes progress on new/existing concepts.
· Degree to which the proposed work is based on sound scientific and engineering principles.
· Likelihood of developing a new successful technology.
· Anticipated benefits of the proposed work in comparison to current commercial and emerging technologies.
Criterion 2 – Technical Approach – XX%
· Adequacy and feasibility of the Applicant’s approach to achieving the funding opportunity announcement’s stated objectives.
· Appropriateness, rationale, and completeness of the proposed Statement of Project Objectives.
· Extent of prior use, research, development or Response of the proposed technology and appropriateness of how the prior work relates to the proposed Response of the technology.
· Adequacy of the proposed project schedule, staffing plan, and proposed travel.
· Degree to which the Applicant has identified high-risk challenges and presented reasonable mitigation strategies.
· Adequacy of technology transfer plan, commercialization and utilization of proposed technology.
Criterion 3 – Technical and Management Capabilities – XX%
· Demonstrated capability and experience of the Applicant and its participating organizations in managing projects that meet project objectives, within budget and on schedule.
· Clarity, completeness, and appropriateness of the Project Management Plan in establishing a credible project base and how the activitywill be implemented and managed.
· Clarity, logic and effectiveness of project organization, including subawards, to successfully complete the project.
· Credentials, capabilities, and experience of key personnel.
· Adequacy and availability of proposed personnel, facilities, and equipment to perform project tasks.
Each Reviewer member will be required to provide written strengths and weaknesses with regard to the evaluation criteria. The strengths and weaknesses will serve as a basis to assigning a numerical score to the Responses.
A strength is an aspect of a Response that, when compared to the stated evaluation criterion, appears to positively affect the probability of successful mission accomplishment of the potential financial assistance agreement.
A weakness is an aspect of a Response that, when compared to the stated evaluation criterion, appears to negatively affect the probability of successful mission accomplishment of the potential financial assistance agreement.
After completing individual reviews, the Review Leader should schedule a consensus review meeting and coordinate the development of the Consensus Strengths and Weaknesses and Consensus Scores.
Rating Scale Sample A:
Only the following adjectives may be assigned: Outstanding, Good, Adequate, Fair and Poor. The scoring of each criterion must be based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Response. To assist in assigning an appropriate score, the following can be used as a guideline:
Rating Descriptive Statement
| Outstanding | Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates that it will meet the City’s performance requirements, and demonstrates no weaknesses |
| Good | Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates a likelihood of meeting the City’s requirements, and demonstrates only a few minor weaknesses. |
| Adequate | Applicant addresses all aspects of the criterion and demonstrates the ability to meet the City’s performance requirements. The Response may contain significant weaknesses and/or a number of minor weaknesses. |
Poor Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion nor is evidence presented indicating the likelihood of successfully meeting the City’s requirements. Significant weaknesses are demonstrated and clearly outweigh any strengths presented.
Unacceptable Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion and the information presented indicates a strong likelihood of failure to meet the City’s requirements.
Sample B:
Only the following color rating values may be assigned: Blue, Green, Yellow, and Red. The scoring of each criterion must be based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Response. To assist in assigning an appropriate score, the following can be used as a guideline:
Rating Descriptive Statement
Blue Exceptional Response – Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates that it will meet the City’s performance requirements, and demonstrates no weaknesses
Green Acceptable Response - Applicant addresses all aspects of the criterion and demonstrates the ability to meet the City’s performance requirements. The Response may contain significant weaknesses and/or a number of minor weaknesses.
Yellow Marginal Response - Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion nor is evidence presented indicating the likelihood of successfully meeting the City’s requirements. Significant weaknesses are demonstrated and clearly outweigh any strengths presented
Red Unacceptable Response - Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion and the information presented indicates a strong likelihood of failure to meet the City’s requirements.
Sample C:
Only the following numerical rating values may be assigned: 10, 8, 5, 2, and 0. The scoring of each criterion must be based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Response. To assist in assigning an appropriate score, the following can be used as a guideline:
| Rating | Descriptive Statement |
| 10 | Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates that it will meet the City’s performance requirements, and demonstrates no weaknesses. |
| 8 | Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates a likelihood of meeting the City’s requirements, and demonstrates only a few minor weaknesses. |
5 Applicant addresses all aspects of the criterion and demonstrates the ability to meet the City’s performance requirements. The Response may contain significant weaknesses and/or a number of minor weaknesses.
2 Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion nor is evidence presented indicating the likelihood of successfully meeting the City’s requirements. Significant weaknesses are demonstrated and clearly outweigh any strengths presented.
0 Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion and the information presented indicates a strong likelihood of failure to meet the City’s requirements.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .