Sample_Eval_Criteria_and_Rating_Plan.docx

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

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:

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.