TERMS OF REFERENCE / STATEMENT OF WORK
1. Project Title:
Linkages between Workplace Skills Training and Firm Productivity
2. Purpose:
The purpose of this project is to gain a better understanding of the relationship between
workplace skills training and productivity. Human Resources and Social Development
Canada (HRSDC) is seeking a comprehensive report which examines this relationship
through quantitative or qualitative analysis of the evidence on the relationship between
training and productivity which adds to the current literature – perhaps using Workplace and
Employee Survey (WES) data, other data such as international data sets, or other approaches
such as targeted case studies. The report should address the question: Is there empirical
evidence of the transmission mechanism(s) by which human capital investments through
training can affect firm productivity? The analysis should include a literature review and
provide a theoretical framework as the base for analysis which focuses on the most relevant
policy areas.
This project will create policy relevant research that will inform policy development. As
such, a strong emphasis is placed on dissemination of the research findings generated from
HRSDC’s investment in research. As part of this emphasis on information sharing, there is a
possibility of multiple workshops, conferences, and speaker series arising from the research
findings. An invitation for future participation in potential workshops, conferences and
speakers series as a subject matter expert on the research topic developed in this RFP is a
possibility.
3. Background:
Productivity is a measure of the efficiency with which labour, capital, and technology are
combined to produce goods and services. There are two principal definitions of productivity
– labour productivity and total factor productivity. Labour productivity is simply the amount
Request for Proposal
1
of output produced by the economy divided by the amount of labour employed to produce it.
Total factor productivity is a broader concept that bundles labour, capital and intermediate
inputs (inventories, energy, materials and supplies) together into a single input statistic which
is compared to the amount of output produced by an economy (Shaw 2000). It is labour
productivity that we wish to focus our attention on with this Request for Proposal.
Labour productivity growth is important because in the long run it is the key determinant of
real income growth. In fact, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita can be decomposed
into the product of labour productivity (output per hour worked), the average number of
hours each person works, and the proportion of the entire population that is employed
(Sharpe 2006). With looming demographic pressures on the horizon due to the potential for a
reduction in the working age population, improvements in labour productivity will be
increasingly important to maintain and enhance our standard of living.
Most discussions of productivity have been at the aggregate economy-wide level related to
such factors as technological change, and efficiency gains from trade liberalization and the
education of the workforce. However, a main source of comparative advantage can flow
from the strategic use of human resources in firms through innovative workplace practices.
Training, as well as job design, employee involvement, compensation, work time
arrangements, diversity management, and workplace well-being programs have been
identified as the most important innovative workplace practices. At the same time, making
the direct link between innovative management practices and productivity outcomes has been
identified as a key issue that needs to be addressed (Gunderson 2002).
A review of available literature finds that the work that has been done on this subject has not
clearly examined the direct link between workplace training and direct measures of firm
productivity. For example, Betcherman (1996) found that there is very little evidence in the
literature concerning the impacts of training on firm performance, e.g. productivity, quality,
sales and profits. John Balwin’s (1999) study which focused on the connection between a
firm’s innovativeness and its success found that a common element of successful firms was a
commitment to training – in particular formal training. However, the study did not quantify
this relationship by making the direct link between workplace training and productivity.
The OECD (1998) undertook an international literature review on the benefits of training for
individuals and firms. Overall, this research found that it is difficult to show direct links
between particular training investments and productivity gains.
Request for Proposal
2
Bélanger (2002) discussed the need for studies which focus on changes in production systems
– brought about by globalization and by the diffusion of information technology – as the
central driver of the need for investments in human capital formation. Further, he argues the
need for studies that place emphasis on the social dynamics through which human capital is
mobilized at the point of production.
Edwards et al. (2002) examined trends in productivity in the aluminum smelting industry and
found that productivity improvements were due to changes in the social organization of
production at the plants. In addition, the authors found that there may be evidence that
productivity improvements were associated with increases in training.
The Canadian Policy Research Network’s (CPRN 1997) study found that virtually no
analysis exists on the impacts of workplace training on key outcomes such as productivity,
quality, sales and profits. It attributed this gap to the following methodological obstacles that
make it difficult to link workplace training to firm-level outcomes:
1. Most training is informal which is difficult to fully capture;
2. Outcome measures may be inaccessible at the firm level;
3. It is difficult to isolate the impact of training since it is interwoven with other factors
such as technological innovation;
4. Single data points may not identify true impacts as training effects may take time to be
fully reflected; and
5. It is difficult to determine the direction of causality describing the relationship between
training and firm performance.
CPRN’s study attempted to tackle these methodological difficulties through the use of panel
data. This approach permitted the researchers to compare the performance of training and
non-training establishments over time. While the survey did not collect financial or other
related performance statistics on firms, it relied on qualitative trends in revenues, profitability
and productivity. The main finding of the research was that establishments with training
programs performed better than the non-trainers.
Other research on the topic has been largely limited to estimating the impact of training on
wages. However, in most circumstances wage gains are not equal to overall productivity
gains because labour markets are not perfectly competitive and wages are generally not equal
to the value of the marginal product (Dearden 2006).
Request for Proposal
3
Turcotte et al. (2004) made use of the WES to examine the effect of human capital and
technology use. The study found that no micro-level economic study had been able to
directly examine the way in which the combination of technology investments and human
capital affects the productivity of firms and the wages of workers. The paper found that the
share of workers receiving on-the-job training did not significantly affect productivity but
that an increase in the share of workers receiving formal training was associated with 3.5%
higher productivity with a similar benefit to workers. However, the research was based on
cross-section data for one year only with the result that the analysis did not provide any
information on the way in which technology and human capital affect productivity over time.
From this examination of the literature we can conclude that the impact of workplace skills
training on firm productivity is a key gap in the literature. The literature does, however,
provide some examples of approaches that could be used to establish the link between
workplace skills training and productivity. For example, a 2006 Industry Canada paper using
WES data suggests one approach to quantify the impact of training on productivity. In
addition, the 1997 CPRN study which used panel data supplies another example that could
provide useful insight into this research question. There may also be other useful approaches.
References:
Baldwin, John. (1999). Innovation, Training and Success, Ottawa: Statistics Canada,
Analytical Studies Branch, October 1999.
Bélanger, Jacques. (2002). From Human Capital to Organizational Learning, Canadian
Public Policy, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1.
Betcherman, Gordon, N. Leckie and K. McMullen. (1996). Workplace training in Canada:
New Evidence on incidence and impacts. Canadian Business Economics, 5: 33-50.
Betcherman, Gordon, Katie Davidman, and Kathryn McMullen. (1998). Training for the New
Economy - A Synthesis Report, Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Canadian Policy Research Networks. (1997). Developing Skills in the Canadian Workplace:
The Results of the Ekos Workplace Training Survey, CPRN Study No. W02.
Request for Proposal
4
Dearden, Lorraine, Howard Reed and John Van Reenen. (2006). The Impact of Training on
Productivity and Wages: Evidence from British Panel Data, Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics, 68(4).
Edwards, Paul, Jacques Bélanger and Martyn Wright. (2002). The Social Relations of
Productivity: A Longitudinal and Comparative Study of Aluminum Smelters,
Industrial Relations, 57(2).
Fortin, Pierre. (2002). Canadian Productivity: When do we Catch Up? ISUMA, Spring 2002:
47-51.
Gunderson, Morley. (2002). Rethinking Productivity from a Workplace Perspective,
Canadian Policy Research Networks.
__ . (1998). Human Capital Investment, An International Comparison, OECD.
Jorgensen, Dale and Eric Yip. (1999). Whatever Happened to Productivity Growth? Harvard
University.
Rabemananjara, Rova and Chris Parsley. (2006). Employee Training Decisions, Business
Strategies and Human Resource Management Practices: A Study by Size of Business,
Ottawa: Industry Canada.
Sharpe, Andrew. (2006). Lessons for Canada from International Productivity Experience,
Ottawa: Center for the Study of Living Standards.
Shaw, Daniel J. (2000). Canada’s Productivity and Standard of Living: Past, Present and
Future, Ottawa: Government of Canada.
Turcotte, Julie and Lori Whewell Rennison. (2004). Productivity and Wages: Measuring the
Effect of Human Capital and Technology Use from Linked Employer-Employee Data,
Ottawa: Department of Finance.
Request for Proposal
5
4. Project Requirements:
Proposals considered for contract award will:

Conduct a literature review to summarize and clarify the key findings in the most
recent theoretical and empirical literature about the relationship between workplace
skills training and firm productivity, supported by clear definitions of both concepts.
The review should draw on international and national research and consider policy
implications for Canada. Literature selection criteria should be listed in the proposal
and include process for selection;

Define key concepts, discuss theoretical underpinnings, and describe research
methodologies;

Go beyond the information in the current literature by undertaking a quantitative or
qualitative analysis of the causal relationship between training and productivity –
perhaps using WES data, other data such as international data sets, or other
approaches such as targeted case studies1;

Consider the empirical evidence of the pathways / transmission mechanism(s) by
which human capital investments through training can affect firm productivity;

Suggest areas for future research and data needs to support aggregate analysis;

Propose feasible research and include appropriate activities, timelines and budget.
HRSDC recognizes that the proposed area for research is broad. Bidders are expected to
narrow their proposal to address a specific area of research within this topic. Within
this specific area, bidders must outline the policy research questions that will be the focus of
their research. However, focused proposals and relevance of the research topic / questions to
HRSDC policies is essential.
Proposals should consider one or more of the following questions, but are not limited to
these questions as long as the additional question(s) is/are of importance to HRSDC:
1
HRSDC is open to a range of research methodologies including those that use existing, and new data sources,
therefore, bids that propose the collection of new data will be considered. New data includes quantitative (survey
etc.) and qualitative (key informant interview, case study, focus group etc.) work.
Request for Proposal
6

What skills do the training target?

Length of training?

Formal vs. informal, on-the-job training?

Drivers of training – business objectives, etc.

What is the transfer mechanism? Is there only one, or a combination of factors?

Are there threshold effects – minimum training levels below which productivity
impacts are not measurable (or not there)?

What are the characteristics of workers who seek and obtain training and how do they
relate to productivity? Is it those who are already highly skilled that pursue further
training that are employed in highly productive firms? Are there variable impacts on
productivity depending on existing learner skill level?

The case of older workers is a possible area of focus as these workers are sometimes
perceived as being less interested in training and/or not suitable candidates for
training investment. If this is the case, how do various sectors or occupations
compare with one another? What are the necessary conditions under which impacts
are felt?

What are the effects of training on firms?

Where relevant, regional disparities, gender and other relevant variables should be
considered in the analysis of relationships between workplace skills training and
productivity.
Multi-disciplinary teams are encouraged to critically discuss and analyze current debates
about the relationship between workplace skills training and firm productivity.
In undertaking this research the researchers and their personnel must:


not act, or identify themselves as acting, on behalf of HRSDC or the Government of
Canada when collecting and using personal information to conduct the Research project.
This does not, however, preclude Researchers from indicating that the Research project is
being funded by HRSDC;
inform individuals who participate in any interviews that their individual responses,
including personal information, are being collected solely for the Researchers’ use and
Request for Proposal
7


that such information will not, at any time, be made available to HRSDC or the
Government of Canada;
provide reports to HRSDC that do not include any personal information; and
fulfill their obligations under the MOU in accordance with all laws applicable to the
performance of the work including, without limitation, all laws concerning the protection
of personal information.
5. Description of Work:
In undertaking the project, the contractor must carry out several activities including the
following:

Prepare and submit one electronic copy of a preliminary draft report by December 16,
2007.

Prepare and submit one electronic copy of the detailed draft paper by February 29,
2008. The paper should follow the attached style guide.

Prepare and submit one electronic copy of the final paper, one electronic copy of the
power point presentation with speaking notes, and one electronic copy of the two page
report summary on the research findings by May 12, 2008.

Contractors will also be expected to review the final report for quality assurance once
it has been formatted by HRSDC staff for publication.
The report must address all of the project requirements. The detailed draft report should
be as complete as possible such that the final report should be just an incorporation of the
final feedback from HRSDC regarding the preliminary report. The final report will be
published as is with no further editing provided by HRSDC. Therefore, text editing and
correctness of grammar and spelling will be the responsibility of the contractor.
In order to avoid the necessity for extensive changes, the contractor should follow
the style guidelines provided when preparing the draft report, abstract and
executive summary.
The Canadian Style Guide, published by Dundurn Press Ltd. in cooperation with Public
Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau, can also be helpful in
matters of punctuation, capitalization, and usage. The Gage Canadian Dictionary is the
Request for Proposal
8
official standard for federal government spelling, but any reputable Canadian dictionary
may be used as a reference. In matters of spelling, capitalization, and graphics,
consistency is key.
6. Deliverables:

Initial (in-person or telephone) meeting with the Director General of Strategic
Policy Research on the design of the project, the timeline, and deliverables.

Preliminary point form report – to be submitted by December 16, 2007.

Complete draft report – to be submitted by February 29, 2008.

Final report, including all components listed below, and power point presentation
of research findings – to be submitted by May 12, 2008.
o Final reports must include:
 An abstract;
 An executive summary;
 A table of contents;
 A list of figures;
 A list of tables;
 A bibliography, proper citations, and explanatory footnotes if required;
 A two-sentence description of the paper for use as an Internet summary;
 Ten subject keywords for registering the publication with internet search engines
(Without these keywords, the document will not be found on the HRSDC
website. The keywords must be found in the Government of Canada Core
Subject Thesaurus. The Thesaurus can be found on the Internet at:
http://en.thesaurus.gc.ca/these/thes_e.html;
 A short paragraph of Key Findings;
 Two electronic versions of the final report must be submitted - one in MS Word
(.doc) and one in Adobe portable document format (.pdf), including the source
files of all electronic images, e.g. graphs, photographs, tables and images,
included in the document (minimum 4X5, 300 dpi).
Contractors will receive a manual entitled “Publication Guidelines for Research Contractors”.
This manual offers a step-by-step guide to the preparation of all reports for the Strategic Policy
Research Directorate (SPRD). Its aim is to ensure that all essential information is included and
to promote uniformity of format. Contractors are advised to follow the format described here and
to adhere to the report requirements stipulated in the contract. Only final report documents
which meet formal specifications will be accepted for final payment.
Request for Proposal
9
7. Conditions:
Copyright & Intellectual Property: will remain with the contractor but no publication
should be released without notifying HRSDC prior to its release. HRSDC requests the
contractor allow HRSDC to publish the document on the internet as part of a series of
papers commissioned through HRSDC
8. Period of Contract:
The contractor will commence upon signature of a contract and should complete the project
no later than June 30, 2008.
9. Budget:



The cost of professional fees shall not exceed the available budget of $45,000 excluding
applicable taxes (GST/HST) and all other related expenses.
data access fees to a Statistics Canada Research Data Centre (RDC),
if applicable, will be paid to the contractor upon submission of an invoice from the RDC,
up to a maximum of $4000.00.
Bidders must submit a detailed statement of their estimated costs associated with the
submission, including the per diem rates of all researchers who will be involved.
10. Communications:
Prospective bidders may direct questions about this RFP to SPRD of HRSDC. Any questions
must be posed in writing, and all questions and answers will be shared with all known
prospective bidders. Written questions may be directed to:
robert.hayman@hrsdc-hrdsc.gc.ca
Proposals must be submitted before 16:00 (EST / EDT) November 23, 2007. Proposals
will not be accepted after this time.
Request for Proposal
10
11. Selection Criteria:
a. Mandatory Requirements:

The principle analysts must hold an advanced degree (MA, PhD, or equivalent) in at
least one of the following areas:

Economics

Sociology

Another discipline relevant to the topic.

A detailed statement of the work planned for carrying out this project,
including the identification of specific outputs and a schedule for their
completion. Bidders should ensure to provide an outline of the level of work
allocated to each contractor and subcontractor involved in the project.

A Curriculum Vitae (CV) for each staff member involved in the paper, and the
estimated time spent by the staff on each component of the paper. If some
members are replaced after the contract is signed, the contractor must advise
PRCD immediately in writing, and provide the names of the proposed
replacement and a CV of the proposed replacement to justify their
competence, failing which the contract may be terminated.

Does not exceed the available $45,000 budget constraints. A detailed budget
for the project must be provided. The bidders shall provide a cost breakdown
for all components of the research project, including professional fees and
other incidentals.
b. Rated Requirements:
Proposals will be assessed and awarded points to a maximum of 155 points. The relative
importance of certain criteria is reflected in the following selection matrix:
Request for Proposal
11
Criteria
Total Points
Min Pts Rqr’d
TECHNICAL
Demonstrated Understanding of the Policy & Research Issues
Related to the Project Requirements
20
 The bidder should demonstrate their understanding of the project requirements and
requirements by situating the proposal within existing research and literature on the topic while
also demonstrating awareness of HRSDC policy research interests (e.g., Labour Market, Skills
and Social policy). Proposals should expand upon the background section outlined in the RFP,
bidders who submit a proposal which only copies directly from the background section of the
RFP will not be awarded points under the demonstrated understanding section.
Proposed Theoretical Approach
30
 Proposals will be evaluated on the theoretical approach outlined in the proposal.
Where
insufficient theoretical literature is available, or is inappropriate for the issues to be pursued,
the proposal should provide a sound conceptual framework from which to address the issues.
The bidder should ensure to thoroughly describe the relevant theoretical approach(es) (or
conceptual framework) to be used in the research and provide an understanding of how such
approaches will meet the scope of work.
Proposed Methodological Approach
30
 Proposals will be evaluated on the methodological approach outlined in the proposal.
The
bidder should ensure to thoroughly describe the methodological approach(es) to be used in the
research and provide an understanding of how such approaches will meet the project
requirements. Bidders should ensure that a full description of the proposed methodologies is
included (e.g., empirical models, selection of participants in qualitative research etc.);
proposals that simply state a process without elaborating on the steps within the process will
not receive passing marks.
Originality of Proposed Research
20
 The bidder should ensure to demonstrate originality in their approach to the research question
by indicating where its theoretical or methodological innovation lies.
TOTAL TECHNICAL
100
70
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTRACTOR
Relevant research experience
40
 Bidders should provide evidence of experiences in conducting similar types of work relevant to
this project as well as expertise in the analysis & synthesis of information particularly as it
pertains to the subject area.
Relevant Policy-Oriented Writing Experience
 Bidders should provide details of relevant experience and competencies that clearly
demonstrate the bidder’s experience in writing policy-oriented documents for various
audiences. Bidders will be rated on the quality of the body of work completed.
TOTAL CONTRACTOR CHARACTERISTICS
Total
Request for Proposal
15
55
155
38.5
108.5
12
c. Basis of Selection:

The highest rated proposal meeting minimum point requirements within the stated
budget constraints will be recommended for contract award. In the case of a tie,
the contract will be awarded to the lowest cost bidder.

A minimum score of seventy (70) percent overall is required to pass. Proposals
not meeting the minimum 70 percent will not be considered for contract award.

A further break down of how points will be awarded is provided in the Appendix.

Given the uncertainties involved in such assessments, HRSDC is prepared to fund
more than one such project to see where the analysis yields similar conclusions
and where the analysis yields different conclusions. Individual contractors will
be awarded no more than one $45,000 contract under this RFP. This will
enable us to better assess where the conclusions are more or less robust. Up to
four (4) separate contracts of $45,000 each (excluding applicable taxes), could be
awarded under this same RFP. Proposal which suggest a budget greater than the
available budget of $45,000 will automatically be excluded from the evaluation.
12. Payment:
Payments will be based on the deliverables. Payment will be made 30 days after receipt of an invoice
and upon acceptance of each deliverable by the Project Authority after review and edits.
Payment of data access fees, if applicable, will be made after receipt of an invoice from the
RDC.
Thirty percent (30%) of the total contract value will be issued when the successful bidder has
provided a preliminary point form draft report of the findings to Strategic Policy Research
Directorate, (no later than December 16, 2007). Another fifty percent (50%) of the total
contract value will be issued upon satisfactory completion of a complete draft (to be
submitted no later than February 29, 2008). HRSDC will issue the last twenty percent
(20%) of the payment upon satisfactory completion of the final report and power point
presentation. The final report and power point presentation are to be submitted to HRSDC
no later than May 12, 2008 at which time HRSDC has up to 30 days to review the
documents, and if deemed satisfactory, issue the payment.
Request for Proposal
13
Request for Proposal
14
APPENDIX
Selection Criteria Points
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
a)
Demonstrated Understanding of the Policy & Research Issues Related to the Project
Requirements:
(maximum 20 points)
Not addressed:
0 points (0%)
Fair:
10 points (50%)
Good:
14 points (70%)
Very Good:
17 points (85%)
Excellent:
20 points (100%)
Subjective Rating Criteria for Requirement
 Not addressed: a demonstrated understanding of the departmental policy and research issues
is not provided in the proposal or was copied directly from the proposal. There was no
discussion of the specific research questions chosen to be addressed by the bidder.
 Fair: the bidder has little understanding the policy and research issues and / or does provide
sufficient links to past research in the area. The bidder provided little elaboration from the
proposal background. Little to no discussion of the narrowed research topic and questions to
be addressed was provided.
 Good: the bidder has a satisfactory understanding of policy and research issues related to the
project requirements. The proposal provided a good background description that built on the
outlined background in the proposal. Some discussion of the research questions and
narrowed topic was provided in the proposal.
 Very good: the bidder has a good understanding of how such research fits with policy and
research issues related to the project requirements. The background was well written, clear
and provided a good understanding of the state of past research. The proposal provided a
good description of the narrowed research topic, its implications for the department, and the
research questions to be addressed within this project.
 Excellent: the bidder has a sophisticated understanding of how such research fits with the
policy and research issues related to the project requirements. The background provided an
excellent link to previous research on the topic. An excellent understanding of the more
narrow research focus was provided. A detailed understanding of the research questions and
the impacts of this research for the department was outlined in the proposal.
b)
Proposed Theoretical Approach:
(maximum 30 points)
Not addressed:
0 points (0%)
Request for Proposal
15
Fair:
Good:
Very Good:
Excellent:
15 points (50%)
21 points (70%)
25.5 points (85%)
30 points (100%)
Subjective Rating Criteria for Proposed Theoretical Approach:
 Not addressed: no information on the theory is provided in the proposal.
 Fair: proposal inadequately describes the proposed theory and / or the proposed theory is
inappropriately linked to the research (i.e. inaccurate, outdated and / or irrelevant) and does
not meet the project requirements.
 Good: the proposal provides a limited description of the theory proposed. The theory is
appropriate for understanding key aspects of the problem / issue.
 Very Good: the proposal provides a decent description of the theory and I well suited for the
topic and will meet the project requirements.
 Excellent: the theory proposed is discussed in depth and demonstrates a sophisticated
knowledge of the topic. The selected theory demonstrates a clear understanding of key
issues within the topic.
c) Proposed Methodological Approach:
(maximum 30 points)
Not addressed:
0 points (0%)
Fair:
15 points (50%)
Good:
21 points (70%)
Very Good:
25.5 points (85%)
Excellent:
30 points (100%)
Subjective Rating Criteria for Proposed Methodological Approach:
 Not addressed: no information on the proposed methodology is provided in the proposal.
 Fair: proposed methodology is significantly lacking in its description. At least three major
questions remain around the methodology. No discussion of the benefits and consequences
of this methodology is provided.
 Good: the description of the methods is adequate; however, at least two significant r
questions remain around the methodology to be employed. A brief discussion of the benefits
and consequences of this methodology is provided.
 Very Good: the description of the methods is good, however, there is one major questions or
any number of small questions remaining around the methodology to be employed. A good
discussion of the benefits and consequences of this methodology is provided.
 Excellent: the description of the methods is clearly articulated. A good discussion of the
benefits and consequences of this methodology is provided.
Request for Proposal
16
d) Originality of Proposed Research:
(maximum 20 points)
Not addressed:
0 points
Fair:
10 points
Good:
14 points
Very Good:
17 points
Excellent:
20 points
Subjective Rating Criteria for Originality
 Not addressed: the proposal demonstrates no originality.
 Fair: the bidder has only fairly demonstrated originality.
 Good: the bidder has satisfactorily demonstrated originality.
 Very good: the bidder has provided a good demonstration of originality.
 Excellent: the bidder has a sophisticated proposal that demonstrates significant originality.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTRACTOR
a) Demonstrated Technical Expertise:
(maximum 40 points)
Not addressed:
0 points
Fair:
10 points
Good:
20 points
Very Good:
30 points
Excellent:
40 points
Subjective Rating Criteria for Demonstrated Technical Expertise:
 Not addressed: no information on research experience provided in the proposal.
 Fair: contractor is missing / has failed to demonstrate relevant experience in at least three of
the relevant experiences.
 Good: contractor is missing / has failed to demonstrate relevant experience in at least two of
the relevant experiences.
 Very Good: contractor is missing / has failed to demonstrate relevant experience in at one
three of the relevant experiences.
 Excellent: contractor has demonstrated relevant experience in all of the relevant areas.
b) Relevant Policy Oriented Writing Experience:
Request for Proposal
17
(maximum 15 points)
Not addressed:
Fair:
Good:
Very Good:
Excellent:
0 points (0%)
7.5 points (50%)
10.5 points (70%)
13 points (85%)
15 points (100%)
Subjective Rating Criteria for Relevant Research Experience:
 Not addressed: no information on experience writing research papers and policy-oriented
documents for various audiences provided in the proposal.
 Fair: body of research demonstrates little quality experience in writing research papers and
policy-oriented papers for various audiences.
 Good: body of research demonstrates some quality experience in writing research paper and
policy-oriented documents for various audiences.
 Very Good: body of research demonstrates good quality experience in writing research
papers and policy-oriented documents for various audiences.
 Excellent: body of research demonstrates significant quality experience writing research
papers and policy-oriented documents for all audiences
Request for Proposal
18