RFP 8291 - Professional Development – August 2013
Evaluation Rubric – Summary Committee Form
Review Committee #:______________
Vendor : ________________________________________
RFP Response
 Vendor responded to Part A: School-Level Support for Social-Emotional Learning ONLY [Y/N]
 Vendor responded to Part B: District-Level Support for Social-Emotional Learning ONLY [Y/N]
 Vender responded to Part A AND Part B [Y/N]
Minimum Requirements:
 A minimum of two (2) years providing professional development targeted to schools in school districts [Y/N]
 Possession of New Jersey Business Registration Certification (or application) [Y/N]
 Experience and expertise in assisting schools with high poverty, linguistic minorities, and/or special education populations, and the
demonstrated cultural sensitivity of individuals providing services [Y/N]
 Familiarity with national No Child Left Behind initiatives/programs, the School Improvement Grant (SIG), Race to the Top, and other school
improvement efforts in New Jersey [Y/N]
 Familiarity with the use and development of appropriate data at state, district, and school levels aligned to the Common Core state Standards
and the NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards [Y/N]
 Experience with district- and school-based capacity building and leadership development efforts [Y/N]
If any above are N, proposal is not recommended and no further evaluation is needed. If applicable, notes about the requirement that was not met by
the applicant: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________
Max
Score
Section A: Proposed Services
Standards Alignment
 5 – Respondent clearly references how the
proposal is aligned with Common Core standards
for literacy (which includes literacy-related activities
in all other subjects) and math, including references
to criteria or models from achievethecore.org, OR
NJ Standards for other subjects
 4 – Respondent clearly references how the
proposal is aligned with Common Core standards
for literacy (which includes literacy-related activities
in all other subjects) and math, but does not include
references to criteria or models from
achievethecore.org, OR references to NJ
Standards for other subjects lack some details
 3 – Respondent references how the proposal is
aligned with relevant standards but provides only
some details
5
Vendor Score
Vendor #1 Notes
Weight
Weighted
Score
X2
10

2 –, respondent mentions standards-alignment but
does not give details
Scope of Services
 2 – Section includes all required detail as to volume
of students, subject matter focus, example
schedule and these details represent a thoughtful
academic plan (i.e. sufficient time to achieve
results, representative activities are high quality,
etc)
 1 – Some details are included but are not
comprehensive, or not thoughtful
Section B: Work Plan
Deliverables and Timeline
 6 – Audience stated and if the goals are
measurable, relevant, include a time frame and
how measured
 4 - Goals include as above, but audience unclear or
other data missing
 2 – goals mentioned, but not in detail
Address ELL and disabilities inclusion (1 point for reference
to each, and 1 point each for adequate discussion)
Plans for school-level collaboration and feedback are clear
and realistic.
 4 – Applicant articulates how they will collaborate
with leadership at school level including details as
to experience. Communication plans are included.
 2 – Plans are included, but are unrealistic or
burdensome to Principal or communication plans
are omitted
 1/0 – Detail as to collaboration plans is missing
Section C: Organizational Capacity
Organization’s mission and history is aligned with the goals
of NPS and personnel identified have experience leading
social-emotional programs in similar communities or NPS
Given proposed timeline and outcomes, do they have
sufficient human and financial resources to deliver services
to NPS?
Section D: Demonstrated Effectiveness
Evidence of success
5 points – neutral 3rd party has studied the program and
linked to academic improvement in a comparable setting;
4 points – above but not in a comparable setting;
3 points – description of existing, proven research is basis
for approach or other aggregated data from proposer or
client;
2
X1
2
6
X2
12
4
x1
4
4
x1
4
2
x1
2
2
X1
2
5
x2
10
2 points – describes program’s effects on academic
improvement or a related research base that is occasionally
unclear or unconvincing;
1 point – describes program’s effects on academic
improvement or a related research base that is largely
unclear or unconvincing;
0 – lack of substantial evidence of success (quotes,
individual surveys not sufficient)
References face challenges comparable to NPS (3 points
for all 3, 2 for 2 are similar, 1 point for 1)
COST
TOTAL
3
x2
6
Total Possible = 52); cut score = 42
Committee Recommendation (Circle one)
 Recommended for Inclusion
 Score Indicates Recommendation but Committee would like following additional action (reference check, discussion with additional experts or
NPS staff, other)
 Not Recommended for Inclusion
Additional Step Recommended (if Applicable) __________________
Name and Signature of each Committee Member:
Print Name/Signature
Print Name/Signature
Print Name/Signature
Print Name/Signature