SRF 270019 Evaluation Scorecard~1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 74 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD-27-1037-1CEN0-C0000-130442
- Issued by
- Massachusetts
About this file
This is an evaluation scorecard for the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) SRF 270019 DEIB Leadership Retreat and Coaching Request for Response. The document outlines the scoring criteria and methodology for evaluating vendor proposals submitted in response to the procurement for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging facilitation and training services. The evaluation process assesses vendors' qualifications to deliver a leadership retreat and follow-up coaching designed to build organizational culture, strengthen inclusive leadership capacity, and advance equity initiatives within EEC. The scorecard establishes weighted evaluation categories with defined point allocations to ensure consistent and objective assessment of all submitted proposals.
The evaluation scorecard specifies scoring rubrics across multiple assessment dimensions, with points distributed among categories such as vendor experience, qualifications of proposed staff, understanding of scope requirements, approach and methodology, organizational capacity, and pricing. The document establishes clear scoring thresholds and rating scales to guide evaluators in comparing proposals objectively. The weighted framework ensures that proposals with the strongest alignment to EEC's requirements—particularly experience in the education sector and demonstrated expertise in DEIB facilitation—receive proportionally higher scores, enabling EEC to identify the most qualified vendor to deliver high-quality leadership development and organizational coaching services.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFR SRF 270019 DEIB Leadership Retreat and Coaching.docx | DOCX document | |
| Massachusetts W9 Form~17.pdf | ||
| Standard Contract Form Instructions~6.pdf | ||
| Prompt Pay Discount Form~17.pdf | ||
| SRF 270019 Bidders Response Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| Contractor Authorized Signatory Listing Corporation Trust LLC Partnership~3.pdf | ||
| Appendix B Electronic Quote Submission Instructions~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Using the QA Tab~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Standard Contract Form~5.pdf | ||
| Appendix C How to submit a quote~1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix A Required Specifications~4.docx | DOCX document | |
| Contractor Authorized Signatory Listing Single Member LLC Sole Proprietor~4.pdf | ||
| SRF 270019 Bidder Checklist.docx | DOCX document |
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
Cover Sheet
| SRF 270019 DEIB Leadership Retreat and Coaching | |||||
| Instructions for Review Team: | Reviewers should read each vendor's submission. As a scoring team, make a copy of this file for each vendor. Complete rows 4 through 6 on this dashboard. Then, via rows 8, 9, complete the dropdowns to confirm the vendor met the minimum evaluation criteria. If the vendor met the minimum evaluation criteria, proceed to each criterion tab. Complete your scoring in the individual tabs, devoted to each criterion. The scores on each tab will automatically transfer to this dashboard for tabulation. Finally, save the finalized file with the vendor's name in the title of the file name. | ||||
| Vendor Name: | |||||
| Reviewer Name(s): | |||||
| Review Date: | |||||
| Confirm the vendor met minimum evaluation criteria (if vendor did not respond "Yes" to both questions, the vendor will be disqualified as non-responsive) | |||||
| Vendor confirmed it possesses at least three years of experience in DEIB facilitation, coaching, and consultation in public education, serving private and/or local, state education agencies. | |||||
| Vendor confirmed it can facilitate an in-person, leadership retreat at an EEC office location in Massachusetts for up to 50 participants on July 15, 2026, from 8:45 AM (arrival time) to 11:30 AM EST. | |||||
| Comparative Evaluation Criteria | Max Raw Points | Weighting | Max Total Points | Raw Score | Final Score |
| Criterion 1: Methodology & Staffing | 10 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Criterion 2: Proposed Approach for Retreat | 10 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Criterion 3: Proposed Approach to Coaching | 10 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Criterion 4: Measurement | 10 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Criterion 5: Written Reference Letter | 10 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Criterion 6: Pricing Sheet/Value | 10 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| TOTAL | 100 | 0 |
Methodology&Staffing
| Methodology & Staffing | Read below first. Then, input score: |
| Review the vendor's bid and read this criterion's description: | |
| Criterion Description: | |
| The vendor’s proposed methodology represents a dynamic, effective approach for integrating DEIB into Change Management. The vendor’s approach is grounded in evidence and experience. The proposed staff for this scope possess robust experience and qualifications that will meet the emerging needs of EEC. | |
| NEXT: |
Review the Comparative Evaluation Criteria to rate the vendor's bid response on this criterion Input comments below (optional) Input score for this criterion in Cell D1. It will transfer over to the "Cover Sheet" automatically.
| Comparative Evaluation Criteria | |
| Non-responsive (0 pts) | Qualifications are not applicable to request; elements missing / non-responsive to this criteria |
| Unsatisfactory (2pts) | Little evidence of ability to meet the stated criteria. Many required elements are missing. |
| Below Average (4 pts) | Evidence of expertise and ability to meet the stated criteria in some areas is unclear or unsubstantiated by supporting documentation. Some required elements are missing. |
| Average (6 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest adequate qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear evidence of expertise. |
| Above Average (8 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest solid qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Outstanding (10 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest exemplary qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing compelling, clear, and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Comments (optional; reviewers input comments below) |
| Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
Proposed Approach for Retreat
| Proposed Approach for Retreat | Read below first. Then, input score: |
| Review the vendor's bid and read this criterion's description: | |
| Criterion Description: | |
| The vendor has provided a clear, effective proposed approach for the EEC leadership retreat. The vendor’s approach and proposed agenda incorporates evidence-based frameworks. The vendor has thoughtfully incorporated flexibility to meet the needs of the agency, including as needs are identified during implementation. | |
| NEXT: |
Review the Comparative Evaluation Criteria to rate the vendor's bid response on this criterion Input comments below (optional) Input score for this criterion in Cell D1. It will transfer over to the "Cover Sheet" automatically.
| Comparative Evaluation Criteria | |
| Non-responsive (0 pts) | Qualifications are not applicable to request; elements missing / non-responsive to this criteria |
| Unsatisfactory (2pts) | Little evidence of ability to meet the stated criteria. Many required elements are missing. |
| Below Average (4 pts) | Evidence of expertise and ability to meet the stated criteria in some areas is unclear or unsubstantiated by supporting documentation. Some required elements are missing. |
| Average (6 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest adequate qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear evidence of expertise. |
| Above Average (8 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest solid qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Outstanding (10 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest exemplary qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing compelling, clear, and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Comments (optional; reviewers input comments below) |
| Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
Proposed Approach for Coaching
| Proposed Approach for Coaching | Read below first. Then, input score: |
| Review the vendor's bid and read this criterion's description: | |
| Criterion Description: | |
| The vendor’s proposed approach to coaching is dynamic, effective, and interpersonal. The vendor’s approach is grounded in evidence and experience. The vendor’s vision for coaching is specific and attainable, and will clearly ensure the long-term sustainability of DEIB strategies and principles. | |
| NEXT: |
Review the Comparative Evaluation Criteria to rate the vendor's bid response on this criterion Input comments below (optional) Input score for this criterion in Cell D1. It will transfer over to the "Cover Sheet" automatically.
| Comparative Evaluation Criteria | |
| Non-responsive (0 pts) | Qualifications are not applicable to request; elements missing / non-responsive to this criteria |
| Unsatisfactory (2pts) | Little evidence of ability to meet the stated criteria. Many required elements are missing. |
| Below Average (4 pts) | Evidence of expertise and ability to meet the stated criteria in some areas is unclear or unsubstantiated by supporting documentation. Some required elements are missing. |
| Average (6 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest adequate qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear evidence of expertise. |
| Above Average (8 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest solid qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Outstanding (10 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest exemplary qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing compelling, clear, and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Comments (optional; reviewers input comments below) |
| Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
Measurement
| Measurement | Read below first. Then, input score: |
| Review the vendor's bid and read this criterion's description: | |
| Criterion Description: | |
| The vendor possesses robust experience with development or utilizing measurement tools to gauge success. The vendor provided a clear, compelling example of incorporating data into their approach to follow-up coaching. | |
| NEXT: |
Review the Comparative Evaluation Criteria to rate the vendor's bid response on this criterion Input comments below (optional) Input score for this criterion in Cell D1. It will transfer over to the "Cover Sheet" automatically.
| Comparative Evaluation Criteria | |
| Non-responsive (0 pts) | Qualifications are not applicable to request; elements missing / non-responsive to this criteria |
| Unsatisfactory (2pts) | Little evidence of ability to meet the stated criteria. Many required elements are missing. |
| Below Average (4 pts) | Evidence of expertise and ability to meet the stated criteria in some areas is unclear or unsubstantiated by supporting documentation. Some required elements are missing. |
| Average (6 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest adequate qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear evidence of expertise. |
| Above Average (8 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest solid qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Outstanding (10 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest exemplary qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing compelling, clear, and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Comments (optional; reviewers input comments below) |
| Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
Reference Letter
| Written Reference Letter | Read below first. Then, input score: |
| Review the vendor's bid and read this criterion's description: | |
| Criterion Description: | |
| The written reference letter details the vendor’s history of success and instills confidence this vendor will be successful in implementing the services detailed in this RFR. | |
| NEXT: |
Review the Comparative Evaluation Criteria to rate the vendor's bid response on this criterion Input comments below (optional) Input score for this criterion in Cell D1. It will transfer over to the "Cover Sheet" automatically.
| Comparative Evaluation Criteria | |
| Non-responsive (0 pts) | Qualifications are not applicable to request; elements missing / non-responsive to this criteria |
| Unsatisfactory (2pts) | Little evidence of ability to meet the stated criteria. Many required elements are missing. |
| Below Average (4 pts) | Evidence of expertise and ability to meet the stated criteria in some areas is unclear or unsubstantiated by supporting documentation. Some required elements are missing. |
| Average (6 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest adequate qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear evidence of expertise. |
| Above Average (8 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest solid qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Outstanding (10 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest exemplary qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing compelling, clear, and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Comments (optional; reviewers input comments below) |
| Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
Pricing Sheet-Value
| Pricing Sheet | Read below first. Then, input score: |
| Review the vendor's bid and read this criterion's description: | |
| Criterion Description: | |
| The vendor’s Pricing Sheet appears complete, comprehensive, and aligned to the scope of services in the RFR. The pricing is in alignment to market research conducted by EEC and is approximately the same or below the estimated value of the procurement (“Initial Contract Duration” value only). The submitted Pricing represents best value to the Commonwealth. | |
| NEXT: |
Review the Comparative Evaluation Criteria to rate the vendor's bid response on this criterion Input comments below (optional) Input score for this criterion in Cell D1. It will transfer over to the "Cover Sheet" automatically.
| Comparative Evaluation Criteria | |
| Non-responsive (0 pts) | Qualifications are not applicable to request; elements missing / non-responsive to this criteria |
| Unsatisfactory (2pts) | Little evidence of ability to meet the stated criteria. Many required elements are missing. |
| Below Average (4 pts) | Evidence of expertise and ability to meet the stated criteria in some areas is unclear or unsubstantiated by supporting documentation. Some required elements are missing. |
| Average (6 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest adequate qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear evidence of expertise. |
| Above Average (8 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest solid qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing clear and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Outstanding (10 pts) | Application materials are complete and suggest exemplary qualifications to meet the stated criteria, providing compelling, clear, and well-documented evidence of expertise. |
| Comments (optional; reviewers input comments below) |
| Strengths: |
Areas of Concern:
Follow-up (if necessary):
Data Validation
| Yes |
| No; the vendor is disqualified |
image1.png image2.png image3.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .