Attachment #2 to Appendix D
Mandatory Criteria
Criteria
Mandatory Evaluation Criteria
M.1
The bidder must identify all human and material resources (e.g. computer modelling
infrastructure), proposed to work on this contract.
M.2
The bidder must identify the lead resource for Phase 1 of the project. The bidder must
demonstrate that this resource has successfully completed post-secondary education with a
specialization in Agricultural Sciences.
Proof of education must be submitted to demonstrate compliance.
M.3
The bidder must identify the lead resource for Phase 2 of the project. The bidder must
demonstrate that this resource has successfully completed post-secondary education with a
specialization in Economics and/or Econometrics.
Cross Reference
to Proposal
Proof of education must be submitted to demonstrate compliance.
1
Rated Criteria
Number
Scoring Methodology
Rated Criteria
Cross Reference
to Proposal
Rated Requirements #1 – Assessment of the Lead Resource or team for Phase #1
1.1
The bidder should demonstrate that the proposed
resource or a team member has education with a
specialization in Agricultural Sciences, including Agroeconomics.
Points will be awarded as follows:



1 point – Bachelor’s degree
3 points – Master’s degree
5 points – Doctorate Degree
The bidder should clearly identify which resource is to
be considered for this criterion.
Maximum points: 5
1.2
Using the project description template, the bidder
should demonstrate that the lead resource or team
member(s) has cumulative experience with 3 projects
that are similar to the work described in the Statement
of Work (Appendix B). A maximum of 15 points per
project (maximum of 3 projects) will be awarded as
follows:
A) Similar requirements of projects evaluating
economic and/or decision models and gap analysis as
described under Phase 1 (max 5 points)
Points will be awarded as follows:
A) Similarity to SOW
 Project includes the evaluation of economic
and/or decision models and gap analysis with
regards to the purpose of a given project– 5
points
 Project includes the evaluation of economic
and/or decision models OR gap analysis with
regards to the purpose of a given project – 4
points
 Project includes a partial evaluation of
economic and/or decision models and gap
analysis with regards to the purpose of a
given project - 3 points
 Project includes a partial evaluation of
2
economic and/or decision models or gap
analysis with regards to the purpose of a
given project - 2 points
 Project is not similar to the SOW – 0 points
B) Similar objectives as those outlined in the SOW
under Phase 1 including the assessment of models; the
identification of structural features and functional
requirements of a new model; the development of
conceptual links; data sources required for a decision
framework; and the development of an operation plan
to build a new model (max 5 points )
B) Similarity to Objectives
Points
Description
1
Objectives are not similar and
vaguely described
2
Objectives are not similar and
somewhat described
3
Objectives are not similar and
well described
4
Objectives are similar and
partially described
5
Objectives are similar and well
described
C) Similarity to Target Groups
C) Similar target groups as those identified in the SOW
(max 5 points)





Cattle & Hog – 5 points
Agriculture Livestock Commodity – 4 points
Agriculture – 3 points
Emergency Management Planning – 2 points
None of the above – 0 points
Total Points – 50 points
Minimum points required – 25points
Rated Requirements #2 – Assessment of the Lead Resource or team for Phase #2
2.1
The bidder should demonstrate that the proposed
Points will be awarded as follows:
3
resource or a team member has education with a
specialization in Economics and/or Econometrics,
including Agro-economics.



1 point – Bachelor’s degree
3 points – Master’s degree
5 points – Doctorate Degree
The bidder should clearly identify which resource is to
be considered for this criterion.
2.1
Using the project description template, the bidder
should demonstrate that the lead resource or team
member(s) has cumulative experience with 2 projects
that are similar to the work described in the Statement
of Work (Appendix B). A maximum of 10 points per
project (max 2) will be awarded as follows:
A) Similar requirements of designing and/or developing
an economic impact modelling tool or decision tool
under Phase 2 (Max 5 points)
B) Similar objectives as those outlined in the SOW
under Phase 2, including the development and
validation of missing equations and the development
of an economic impact modelling tool or decision tool
(max 5 points)
Points will be awarded as follows:
A) Similarity to SOW
 Project consisted of designing AND
developing an economic impact modelling
tool or decision tool – 5 points
 Project consisted of designing OR developing
an economic impact modelling tool or
decision tool – 4 points
 Project partially described the design AND
development of an economic impact
modelling tool or decision tool - 3 points
 Project partially described the design OR
development of an economic impact
modelling tool or decision tool - 2 points
 Project is not similar to the SOW – 0 points
B) Similarity to Objectives
Points
Description
1
Objectives are not similar and
vaguely described
2
Objectives are not similar and
partially described
3
Objectives are not similar and well
described
4
4
5
Objectives are similar and partially
described
Objectives are similar and well
described
Total Points – 25 points
Minimum points required – 12 points
Rated Requirements #3 – Assessment of the Bidders Understanding of the Project Requirements
3.1
The bidder should identify potential problems and
constraints that may occur during the execution of
Phase #1 the statement of work as well as viable
solutions. A maximum of 3 problems/ constraints will
be assessed in the order in which they are presented.
Each identified problem/constraints will be evaluated
out of 5 points.
Points will be awarded as follows:
Points
Description
1
Problem/constraint is not unique to
Phase #1 of the delivery of an impact
assessment, vaguely described with
somewhat clear context and viable
solution identified
2
Problem/constraint is not unique to
Phase #1 of the delivery of an impact
assessment, partially described with
clear context and viable solution
identified
3
Problem/constraint is unique to
Phase #1 of the delivery of an impact
assessment, vaguely described with
somewhat clear context and viable
solution identified
4
Problem/constraint is unique to
Phase #1 of the delivery of an impact
assessment, partially described with
somewhat clear context and viable
solution identified
5
5
Problem/constraint is unique to
Phase #1 of the delivery of an impact
assessment, well described with clear
context and viable solution identified
1 point will be deducted if the solution is not
clearly described or viable
6
3.2
The bidder should identify potential problems and
constraints that may occur during the execution of
Phase #2 the statement of work as well as viable
solutions. A maximum of 3 problems/constraints will
be assessed in the order in which they are presented.
Each identified problem/constraints will be evaluated
out of 5 points.
Points will be awarded as follows:
Points
Description
1
Problem/constraint is not unique to
Phase #2 of the delivery of an IMT,
partially described with somewhat
clear context and viable solution
identified
2
Problem/constraint is not unique to
Phase #2 of the delivery of an IMT,
well described with clear context and
viable solution identified
3
Problem/constraint is unique to
Phase #2 of the delivery of an IMT,
vaguely described with somewhat
clear context and viable solution
identified
4
Problem/constraint is unique to
Phase #2 of the delivery of an IMT,
partially described with somewhat
clear context and viable solution
identified
5
Problem/constraint is unique to
Phase #2 of the delivery of an IMT,
well described with clear context and
viable solution identified
1 point will be deducted if the solution is not
clearly described or viable
7
3.3
The bidder should identify key elements required to
successfully manage Phase #1 of the project and
describe their experience for each element. A
maximum of 3 key elements will be assessed in the
order in which they are presented. Each identified key
element will be evaluated out of 5 points.
Points will be awarded as follows:
Points
Description
1
Key element is not required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is somewhat
described and clear
2
Key element is not required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is well described and
clear
3
Key element is required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is vaguely described
and clear
4
Key element is required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is somewhat
described and clear
5
Key element is required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is well described and
clear
8
3.4
The bidder should identify key elements required to
successfully manage Phase #2 of the project and
describe their experience for each element. A
maximum of 3 key elements will be assessed in the
order in which they are presented. Each identified key
element will be evaluated out of 5 points.
Points will be awarded as follows:
Points
Description
1
Key element is not required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is somewhat
described and clear
2
Key element is not required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is well described and
clear
3
Key element is required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is vaguely described
and clear
4
Key element is required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is somewhat
described and clear
5
Key element is required to
successfully manage a project and
the experience is well described and
clear
Total Points – 60 points
Minimum points required – 30 points
Grand total for the Rated Requirements
Maximum 135 points
9