SRF 260101 SSUP Evaluation Scorecard~1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 67 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD-26-1037-1CEN0-C0000-125996
- Issued by
- Massachusetts
About this file
This is an evaluation scorecard for the FY26 Summer Step Up Program for Young Learners, a procurement by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) to support public school districts in implementing summer programming for children entering preschool through second grade. The scorecard establishes the evaluation criteria and scoring framework for vendor proposals, with a maximum total score of 200 points across eight evaluation categories. Vendors will be assessed on their proposed approach and plan to deliver services (30 points), detailed work plan and timeline (30 points), organizational chart and proposed roles (20 points), team experience and expertise (30 points), proposed budgets and budget narratives (20 points), resumes of team members (10 points), relevant references (10 points), and Supplier Diversity Program commitments (50 points). The work plan and budgets must be divided into two distinct periods: March 2026 through June 30, 2026, and July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, with the latter year submitted assuming contract renewal subject to appropriation and service need.
The scoring rubric provides detailed evaluation criteria for each category, with individual scores ranging from 0 to 10 points based on the completeness, comprehensiveness, and quality of vendor responses. The Supplier Diversity Program component carries the greatest weight at 50 points (25 percent of total score), with point allocations based on the percentage of contract funds committed to certified minority and women-owned business enterprises, ranging from 2 points for commitments up to 1.99 percent to 10 points for commitments of at least 8.00 percent. The contract is described as inclusive of all costs, including travel and translation services, with vendor budgets to be considered as a factor in determining best value to the Commonwealth. The scorecard includes designated spaces for reviewer comments addressing proposal strengths, areas of concern, and any necessary follow-up items for each evaluation category.
View the file
Other files
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
Cover Sheet
| FY26 Summer Step Up Program for Young Learners SOW |
| Review and Scoring Guide |
| Vendor Name: |
| Reviewer Name(s): |
| Review Date: |
| Points | Weighting | Max Points | Raw Score | Final Score | |
| 1. Proposed Approach and Plan to Deliver Services | 10 | 3 | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| 2. Proposed Detailed Work Plan and Timeline | 10 | 3 | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| 3. Organizational Chart and Proposed Roles | 10 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| 4. Description of Team's Experience and Expertise | 10 | 3 | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| 5. Proposed Budgets and Budget Narratives | 10 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| 6. Resumes of Team Members | 10 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| 7. Relevant References | 10 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| 8. Supplier Diversity Program (SDP) [at least 25% of the total score] | 10 | 5 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 200 | 0 |
1. Approach
| 1. Proposed Approach and Plan to Deliver Services | Score: | |
| Description | ||
| Proposed approach and plan to carry out the deliverables described in this scope, including any challenges or barriers anticipated and proposed solutions. | ||
| Evaluation Rating Criteria | ||
| 0 | The applicant’s answer is incomplete and/or vague. The answer does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues and/or programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer far outweigh its strengths. | |
| 2 | The applicant’s answer barely meets minimum requirements. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues but provides insufficient detail on the programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer outweigh its strengths. | |
| 4 | The applicant’s answer is not comprehensive. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues and satisfies some programmatic requirements. The answer offers few details and fails to develop the response beyond public knowledge of grant issues. | |
| 6 | The applicant’s answer is adequate and demonstrates an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements. Overall, the answer demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses. | |
| 8 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements and, in some areas, exceeds the requirements. The answer’s strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. | |
| 10 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects a clear understanding of the issues and addresses all issues identified in the submission requirements and, in the majority of instances, exceeds all requirements. No weaknesses are identified. | |
| Reviewer Comment(s): | ||
| Proposal Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
2. Work Plan
| 2. Proposed Detailed Work Plan and Timeline | Score: | |
| Description | ||
| A proposed detailed work plan and timeline for completing the key tasks and project deliverables outlined by EEC in the scope. The workplan and accompanying budgets should be divided into two parts: (a) March 2026 to June 30, 2026 and (b) July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. The work plan will be revisited and refined at the outset of the awarded contract. | ||
| Evaluation Rating Criteria | ||
| 0 | The applicant’s answer is incomplete and/or vague. The answer does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues and/or programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer far outweigh its strengths. | |
| 2 | The applicant’s answer barely meets minimum requirements. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues but provides insufficient detail on the programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer outweigh its strengths. | |
| 4 | The applicant’s answer is not comprehensive. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues and satisfies some programmatic requirements. The answer offers few details and fails to develop the response beyond public knowledge of grant issues. | |
| 6 | The applicant’s answer is adequate and demonstrates an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements. Overall, the answer demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses. | |
| 8 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements and, in some areas, exceeds the requirements. The answer’s strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. | |
| 10 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects a clear understanding of the issues and addresses all issues identified in the submission requirements and, in the majority of instances, exceeds all requirements. No weaknesses are identified. | |
| Reviewer Comment(s): | ||
| Proposal Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
3. Org Chart
| 3. Organizational Chart and Proposed Roles | Score: | |
| Description | ||
| Provide a detailed organizational chart and description of each key proposed team member’s role, including the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) allocation for each position assigned to this project. Please also describe the approach to and plan for overseeing subcontractor work and performance, if applicable. | ||
| Evaluation Rating Criteria | ||
| 0 | The applicant’s answer is incomplete and/or vague. The answer does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues and/or programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer far outweigh its strengths. | |
| 2 | The applicant’s answer barely meets minimum requirements. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues but provides insufficient detail on the programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer outweigh its strengths. | |
| 4 | The applicant’s answer is not comprehensive. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues and satisfies some programmatic requirements. The answer offers few details and fails to develop the response beyond public knowledge of grant issues. | |
| 6 | The applicant’s answer is adequate and demonstrates an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements. Overall, the answer demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses. | |
| 8 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements and, in some areas, exceeds the requirements. The answer’s strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. | |
| 10 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects a clear understanding of the issues and addresses all issues identified in the submission requirements and, in the majority of instances, exceeds all requirements. No weaknesses are identified. | |
| Reviewer Comment(s): | ||
| Proposal Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
4. Experience
| 4. Description of Team's Experience and Expertise | Score: | |
| Description | ||
| A description of the team’s experience and expertise working with the Commonwealth’s mixed delivery system regarding professional development and technical assistance in both virtual and in-person modalities, including identification of any key staff members or already outside partners that will be participating in consultation to districts. | ||
| Evaluation Rating Criteria | ||
| 0 | The applicant’s answer is incomplete and/or vague. The answer does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues and/or programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer far outweigh its strengths. | |
| 2 | The applicant’s answer barely meets minimum requirements. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues but provides insufficient detail on the programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer outweigh its strengths. | |
| 4 | The applicant’s answer is not comprehensive. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues and satisfies some programmatic requirements. The answer offers few details and fails to develop the response beyond public knowledge of grant issues. | |
| 6 | The applicant’s answer is adequate and demonstrates an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements. Overall, the answer demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses. | |
| 8 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements and, in some areas, exceeds the requirements. The answer’s strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. | |
| 10 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects a clear understanding of the issues and addresses all issues identified in the submission requirements and, in the majority of instances, exceeds all requirements. No weaknesses are identified. | |
| Reviewer Comment(s): | ||
| Proposal Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
5. Budgets
| 5. Proposed Budgets and Budget Narratives | Score: |
| Description | |
| Two separate budgets: (a) one for FY26 (February to June 30, 2026) and (b) one for FY27* (July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027). The proposed budgets should include a detailed listing of all costs associated with performance of this contract, including administrative costs; the number of hours per task, along with a specific description of each task; hourly rates of those staff or subcontractors performing each task and other costs per task; and the projected cost of completing each deliverable. The contract is inclusive of all costs, including travel and translation. All costs must be detailed in the proposed budget. EEC will consider the amount of the proposed budget as a factor in determining best value to the Commonwealth. |
*Vendors will submit a FY27 budget, assuming renewal. FY27 is subject to renewal, depending on appropriation, funding level, and service need.
| Evaluation Rating Criteria | |
| 0 | The applicant’s budget and budget narrative description are incomplete; inappropriate use of funds; does not satisfy fiscal requirements. The weaknesses far outweigh its strengths. |
| 2 | The applicant’s budget and budget narrative are complete; however, insufficient information is provided on how the funding will be allocated to meet grant requirements. There is little to no correlation between the budget, the budget narrative, and the responses; does not satisfy fiscal requirements. The budget and budget narrative barely meet minimum requirements and the weaknesses of the answer outweigh its strengths. |
| 4 | The applicant’s budget and budget narrative are not comprehensive. It demonstrates a reasonable correlation between the budget, the budget narrative, and the responses. The budget and budget narrative satisfies some fiscal requirements. |
| 6 | The applicant’s budget and budget narrative are complete. It demonstrates a correlation between the budget, the budget narrative, and the responses; satisfies fiscal requirements. The budget and budget narrative demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses. |
| 8 | The applicant’s budget and budget narrative are complete. It demonstrates a correlation between the budget, the budget narrative, and the responses; satisfies fiscal requirements. Budget and budget narrative are comprehensive and reflects fiscal requirements and, in some areas, exceeds the requirements. The answer’s strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. |
| 10 | The applicant’s budget and budget narrative are complete. Extensive detail is provided in the budget expenditure description to demonstrate appropriate use of funds; demonstration of leveraging resources and maximizing allocation. Budget and budget narrative reflect a clear correlation between responses and specified grant allocations, appropriate fund use. No weaknesses are identified. |
| Reviewer Comment(s): | |
| Proposal Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
6. Resumes
| 6. Resumes of Team Members | Score: | |
| Description | ||
| The resumes for each individual who will participate in delivering the required services, highlighting their relevant experience, including work supporting programming for PreK through second grade in both district and CBO settings, experience within the EEC mixed‑delivery system, demonstrated expertise in engaging families, and experience collaborating with vendors involved in delivering technical assistance. Please limit each resume to five (5) pages. | ||
| Evaluation Rating Criteria | ||
| 0 | The applicant’s answer is incomplete and/or vague. The answer does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues and/or programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer far outweigh its strengths. | |
| 2 | The applicant’s answer barely meets minimum requirements. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues but provides insufficient detail on the programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer outweigh its strengths. | |
| 4 | The applicant’s answer is not comprehensive. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues and satisfies some programmatic requirements. The answer offers few details and fails to develop the response beyond public knowledge of grant issues. | |
| 6 | The applicant’s answer is adequate and demonstrates an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements. Overall, the answer demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses. | |
| 8 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements and, in some areas, exceeds the requirements. The answer’s strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. | |
| 10 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects a clear understanding of the issues and addresses all issues identified in the submission requirements and, in the majority of instances, exceeds all requirements. No weaknesses are identified. | |
| Reviewer Comment(s): | ||
| Proposal Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
7. References
| 7. Relevant References | Score: | |
| Description | ||
| The names and contact information for at least three (3) references from completed projects that are similar to this. Please include the key contact person, their role and organization, email address and phone number, a short description of the project completed including the timeline and contract amount, and the key proposed staff that were involved in the work. | ||
| Evaluation Rating Criteria | ||
| 0 | The applicant’s answer is incomplete and/or vague. The answer does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues and/or programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer far outweigh its strengths. | |
| 2 | The applicant’s answer barely meets minimum requirements. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues but provides insufficient detail on the programmatic requirements. The weaknesses of the answer outweigh its strengths. | |
| 4 | The applicant’s answer is not comprehensive. It demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issues and satisfies some programmatic requirements. The answer offers few details and fails to develop the response beyond public knowledge of grant issues. | |
| 6 | The applicant’s answer is adequate and demonstrates an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements. Overall, the answer demonstrates more strengths than weaknesses. | |
| 8 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects an understanding of the issues and satisfies programmatic requirements and, in some areas, exceeds the requirements. The answer’s strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. | |
| 10 | The applicant’s answer is comprehensive. It reflects a clear understanding of the issues and addresses all issues identified in the submission requirements and, in the majority of instances, exceeds all requirements. No weaknesses are identified. | |
| Reviewer Comment(s): | ||
| Proposal Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
8. SDP
| 8. Supplier Diversity Program (SDP) | Score: | |
| Description | ||
| Please use the SDP Rubric on the Rubric Tab as a guide for awarding points for the SDP Commitment. NOTE: the Procurement Unit has the vendor’s SDP percentage commitment on file. Please be specific when identifying Proposal Strengths, Areas of Concern, or Follow-up. | ||
| Evaluation Rating Criteria | ||
| 0 | ||
| 2 | Bidder submitted SDP Plan Form and committed up to 1.99% of funds for the life of the contract with certified M/WBEs in the bid response. | |
| 4 | Bidder submitted SDP Plan Form and committed between 2.00% and 3.99% of funds for the life of the contract with certified M/WBEs in the bid response. | |
| 6 | Bidder submitted SDP Plan Form and committed between 4.00% and 5.99% of funds for the life of the contract with certified M/WBEs in the bid response. | |
| 8 | Bidder submitted SDP Plan Form and committed between 6.00% and 7.99% of funds for the life of the contract with certified M/WBEs in the bid response. | |
| 10 | Bidder submitted SDP Plan Form and committed at least 8.00% of funds for the life of the contract with certified M/WBEs in the bid response. | |
| Reviewer Comment(s): | ||
| Proposal Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
image1.png image2.png image3.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .