Strategic Budget Infusion
Request for Proposal (RFP) Scoring and Assessment Process
Projects submitted for the Strategic Budget Infusion will be subject to a two part
assessment. The first component is a quantitative review, using the scoring guide
detailed below. The second component is a supplemental, qualitative review, providing
the opportunity to consider project strengths that might not fit well into the scoring guide.
Projects should be submitted to:
by 5:00 PM on
submitted as either a Word or Adobe document.
date. Projects may be
Each project submission should contain:
1. A written narrative (not to exceed three pages) describing the project.
2. A discussion (not to exceed five pages) of how the project demonstrates each of the
scoring criterions below.
3. A list of the offices and people that will be involved in the project, including contact
information for one point of contact for both the RFP and the project.
The five project review criterions to be assessed quantitatively are:
1. Will the project facilitate an administrative area of support with direct
impact to at least two of the UO missions of teaching, research or
service?1
25%
35%
2. Will the project produce a return to the university in three of the
following categories and a significant return on investment (ROI) in one
or more: 1) dollar, 2) efficiency, 3) prestige, and 4) compliance?
3. Does the project build on Existing UO administrative resources and
strengths (thereby demonstrating project feasibility)?
10%
4. Will the project become self sustaining after the initial, one year period
of investment, or is a reasonable and sufficient plan to fund any
recurring costs identified?
25%
5. Does the project demonstrate flexibility or scalability, allowing its
essential elements to be applied or adapted to other departments or
units?
05%
100%
1
Projects that otherwise score highly but which impact only one of the three missions will be forwarded to
the appropriate Vice President, Vice Provost or Chief Financial Officer for their consideration.
FSI Group 2, Project 2: Strategic Budget Infusion RFP Scoring and Assessment – Page 1 of 5
Scoring Criterion 1 (worth 25%): Will the project facilitate an administrative area of
support with direct impact to at least two of the UO missions of teaching,
research or service?
The UO mission statement contains eleven separate elements2. Projects will receive
scores of 0 – 5 (with five being the highest available score) as follows:
Score
Review Criterion
5
A score of five (5) will be given to projects which:
 Show benefit to an administrative area of support relating to four or more
elements of the UO Mission.
 Present a detailed outline with specific steps planned to create such
support.
 Provide compelling data to show how the project benefits the University
and/or the community.
 Show evidence of having carefully researched the feasibility of the idea.
3
A score of three (3) will be given to projects which:
 Show benefit to an administrative area of support relating to less than four
elements of the UO Mission.
 Regardless of numbers of elements supported, have outlines that lack detail
of specific steps planned to create such support.
 Provide moderate data to show how the project benefits the University
and/or the community.
 Show limited evidence of having carefully research the feasibility of the idea.
0
A score of zero (0) will be given to projects for which one or more of the
following is true:
 Do not show benefit to an administrative area of support relating to elements
of the UO Mission.
 Do not provide an outlined plan.
 Do not provide data on how the project benefits the University and/or
Community.
 Provide no evidence of researching the feasibility of the idea.
2
Note: blue underlined text indicates a “hyperlink” to the UO mission statement and its eleven elements.
FSI Group 2, Project 2: Strategic Budget Infusion RFP Scoring and Assessment – Page 2 of 5
Scoring Criterion 2 (worth 35%): Will the Project produce a return to the University
in three of the following categories and a significant return on investment (ROI) in
one or more: 1) dollar return, 2) efficiency return, 3) prestige return, and 4)
compliance return?
In scoring this the review committee may choose to award the score evenly over all four
sub-categories or according to the significance in return by category (e.g. a project that
reasonably predicts a substantive ROI in dollar return, but not as much in the other
three sub-categories might be awarded 20% in dollar ROI and 0 – 5% in each of the
other three.
An example of a dollar return might be revenue, savings or cost avoidance.
Score
Review Criterion: Dollar Return
5
A score of five (5) will be given to projects which reasonably achieve an ROI of
50% or better; project will provide adequate data and justification.
3
A score of three (3) will be given to projects which achieve an ROI 30%; project
will provide adequate data and justification.
0
A score of zero (0) will be given to projects with no estimated ROI.
An example of an efficiency return might be process streamlining or automation.
Score
Review Criterion: Efficiency Return
5
A score of five (5) will be given to projects which demonstrate a strong
efficiency return in streamlining/eliminating/automating steps without
jeopardizing the integrity of the process being modified.
3
A score of three (3) will be given to projects which demonstrate a moderate
efficiency return in streamlining/eliminating/automating steps without
jeopardizing the integrity of the process being modified.
0
A score of zero (0) will be given to projects which have no efficiency return or
where there the possibility is raised for disruption or weakening of the integrity
of the process being modified.
FSI Group 2, Project 2: Strategic Budget Infusion RFP Scoring and Assessment – Page 3 of 5
An example of a prestige return might be taking a leadership role in a venue important
to the University (such as within the OUS institutions, within the PAC-10, within the
American Association of Universities (AAU), etc., or bring a UO process up to best
standards nationally.
Score
Review Criterion: Prestige Return
5
A score of five (5) will be given to projects which demonstrate a strong prestige
return at the national, state and local level.
3
A score of three (3) will be given to projects which demonstrate a moderate
prestige return at the national, state and local levels, or a return in only two of
the three.
0
A score of zero (0) will be given to projects which have no prestige return at any
level.
An example of a compliance return might be standardizing policy response, eliminating
or reducing vulnerabilities, or automating internal controls.
Score
Review Criterion: Compliance Return
5
A score of five (5) will be given to projects which eliminate an identified
compliance vulnerability.
3
A score of three (3) will be given to projects which demonstrate reduction of an
identified compliance vulnerability.
0
A score of zero (0) will be given to projects which do not result in a compliance
return.
Scoring Criterion 3 (worth 10%): Does the Project build on Existing UO
administrative resources and strengths (thereby demonstrating project feasibility)?
Score
Review Criterion
5
A score of five (5) will be given to projects which have an immediate and/or
direct positive performance contribution to two or more departments or units, as
demonstrated by reasonable metrics.
3
A score of three (3) will be given to projects which have an immediate and/or
direct positive performance contribution to one departments or unit, as
demonstrated by reasonable metrics.
0
A score of zero (0) will be given to projects which do not result any positive
performance contribution to any department or unit.
FSI Group 2, Project 2: Strategic Budget Infusion RFP Scoring and Assessment – Page 4 of 5
Scoring Criterion 4 (worth 25%): Will the project become self sustaining after the
initial, one year period of investment, or is a reasonable and sufficient plan to
fund any recurring costs identified?
Score
Review Criterion
5
A score of five (5) will be given to projects that create new funding sources to
wholly sustain or are otherwise wholly sustainable after the initial investment
period.
3
A score of three (3) will be given to projects that create new funding sources to
partially sustain, are otherwise partially sustainable after the initial investment
period, or require a modest amount of further central funding to sustain the
project.
0
A score of zero (0) will be given to projects that create no new funding sources,
identify no other plan to sustain the project after the initial investment period or
require a generous amount of central funding to sustain the project.
Scoring Criterion 5 (worth 5%): Does the project demonstrate flexibility or
scalability, allowing its essential elements to be applied or adapted to other
departments or units?
Score
Review Criterion
5
A score of five (5) will be given to projects whose essential elements can be
adapted and implemented throughout the majority of UO departments, offices
or units, regardless of differences in function.
3
A score of three (3) will be given to projects whose essential elements can be
adapted and implemented in UO departments, offices or units with similar
function.
0
A score of zero (0) will be given to projects whose essential elements cannot be
adapted and implemented in any other UO departments, offices or units.
FSI Group 2, Project 2: Strategic Budget Infusion RFP Scoring and Assessment – Page 5 of 5