Scoring Criteria. The first four benchmarks are weighted the same, so failure to substantially meet the four benchmarks will count as one failure and result in withholding of 10% of the fiscal year 2020 PHEP award. Failure to meet the pandemic influenza preparedness planning requirement may result in withholding of 10% of the fiscal year 2020 PHEP award. Evaluation and Performance Measurement CDC’s evaluation and performance measurement strategy will assess recipient progress made across the six domains, and the recipient's related strategies, activities, and outcomes. CDC will deploy several methods for assessing PHEP recipient performance throughout this five-year performance period, including, but not limited to: • CPG reports; • ORRs; • Additional process measures; • Outcome measures; and • Progress reports.
Scoring Criteria. Refer to Section 8.1 for detailed guiding questions for the Narrative. Narrative documents shall not exceed 25 pages (not including Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Appendices) and must be written in Calibri, Arial, or Times New Roman, 11 or 12 pt with 1” margins, single-spaced with a single line in between paragraphs. Text in tables, captions, and footnotes may be 10 pt. Narratives must utilize the headers provided in the proposal framework and address all questions and prompts provided. The TAC will incorporate equity in decision-making, scoring, and fund disbursement, evaluating ports according to their needs and ensuring that benefits are shared across the port ecosystem and broader supply chain. Proposals may earn up to 100 points: 60 points for Program Alignment and 40 points for Technical Review. The following scoring scale will be applied to all subsections within Program Alignment and Technical Review. The percentage score will determine the number of points eligible to win from each subsection. The TAC expects that all ports should have a passing score, considering the availability of the TAC to provide feedback on drafts. The TAC reserves the right to veto or disqualify proposals if any section is deemed incomplete, unsatisfactory, or ineligible. Percent Interpretation Explanation 0% Not Passing Response minimally addresses the requirements being scored. The omissions, flaws, or defects are significant and unacceptable. 34 | G r a n t A g r e e m e n t 40% Adequate Response addresses the requirements being scored, but there ar one or more omissions, flaws, or defects or the requirements are addressed in such a limited way that it results in a slightly lower degree of confidence in the proposed solution.
Scoring Criteria. Applicant has written evidence that small business development will be supported by startup or expansion as a result of the grant. 5 points for each letter for separate businesses up to 25 points
Scoring Criteria. Each entry will receive a score of 0-30, based on the following criteria:
Scoring Criteria. In order to qualify, the applicants are required to meet all the following minimum qualification criteria regarding applicants general and particular experience personnel and equipment (computer aids etc.) capabilities, software’s and financial position as demonstrated by the applicant’s response through the questionnaire attached at Appendix-I. Note: All the applicants submit the required information / documents with their bid / proposal with index details of documents and with clear locations of attachments. Soft copy of all documents duly signed to be provided with the proposal. Appendix-I Qualification questionnaire consultancy services: Technical Qualification Basis
Scoring Criteria. The four program benchmarks are weighted the same, so failure to substantially meet any one of the benchmarks during each fiscal year will count as one failure and result in withholding of 10% of the following fiscal year’s HPP award. Failure to submit the required program data outlined in the fifth benchmark regarding the annual pandemic influenza preparedness plan requirement will count as one failure and result in withholding of 10% of the following fiscal year’s HPP award. More information on enforcement actions and disputes is available in the withholding and repayment guidance available in the 2017-2022 HPP-PHEP Supplemental Guidelines. PHEP Evaluation and Performance Measurement Strategy CDC’s evaluation and performance monitoring strategy will assess progress made across the six domains, and their related strategies, activities, and outcomes described in this announcement. CDC will deploy several methods for assessing awardee performance throughout this five-year project period, including collection of process measures, reports, and program and performance measures. Process Measurement CDC will measure PHEP awardee progress using a variety of standard reports and systematic approaches. These include but are not be limited to the following elements.
Scoring Criteria. This section fully describes the selection criteria for applications received in response to this funding opportunity. In preparing applications, applicants are strongly encouraged to review the programmatic requirements. Applications will be scored on a scale of 0-100 according to the point distribution specified in the table below. For scoring purposes, more weight will be given based on quality than on quantity. Criterion Points Strength of Strategic Approach and Proposed Project Design 30 Strength of Evidence 15 Quality of Evaluation 15 Organizational Capacity 15 Budget and Budget Narrative 10 Monitoring and Reporting 15 Total 100 The following criteria will be used to assess applications received in response to this announcement:
Scoring Criteria. This section fully describes the technical merit scoring criteria for applications received in response to this funding opportunity. In preparing applications, applicants are strongly encouraged to review the programmatic requirements. Applications will be scored on a scale of 0-100 according to the point distribution specified in the table below. Cost sharing will not be considered in the technical merit scoring, since ability to meet cost share is already required to be eligible for this award. However, if it is determined during any point in the review process that an applicant cannot meet cost sharing requirements, the application will be deemed ineligible. For scoring purposes, more weight will be given based on quality than on quantity. Application Part Subsection Criterion Point Project Narrative Strategic approach and Project Design Comprehensive Description of Model 20 Supporting Evidence 10 Evaluation Strategy 25 Work Plans and Timelines 10 Organizational Capacity and Quality of Key Personnel Whole subsection and attached Résumés 15 Management and Operational Plan Whole subsection and attached Organizational Chart 10 SF-424 A Budget Budget Narrative and Spreadsheet Budget Narrative and Spreadsheet 10 Total 100 Review panel members (“panelists”) will assign scores up to the point values listed in the table. Points will be deducted from those values based on any criteria listed in Section IV or Section V that the applicant has not included in the application. All full point value should reflect that all criteria have been met. Panelists should provide an identified weakness for any points deducted. Panelists will use the following criteria to assess applications received in response to this announcement:
