Annex 6.3 and 6.4 - Directives on Calls for Proposals - Process to select Sponsor
6.3 Skills Link Assessment Grid
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GRID
FOR YOUTH EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY (YES)
SKILLS LINK PROGRAM (Annex 6A)
CFP-REGION-0506-[Location]-xxx
|
Applicant: |
HRSDC/SERVICECANADAFile #: |
|
Assessor: |
Date: |
|
Application Eligibility: |
YES |
NO |
|
1. Application received no later than stated closing date/time for this CFP. |
|
|
|
2. All the required documents provided as specified in the Guide for Applicants and Applicant has provided 4 paper copies of complete application package, plus 1 diskette.)
|
|
|
|
3. References (person with knowledge of the organizations financial and skill capacity - full name, address and telephone number provided) |
|
|
|
4. Original application signed by organization’s legal signing authority (-ies). |
|
|
|
5. Applicant meets eligibility criteria (outlined in Section 2.1, 5 of the Guide for Applicants). |
|
|
|
6. Proposal meets CFP requirements in terms of clients identified and range of funding and location(s) of service outlined in the CFP. |
|
|
|
If there is a “no” response to any of the questions above, this application will not be considered further.
|
||
|
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT |
Max Score | % of Total | Notes |
|
A. Organizational Experience |
|
|
|
|
A.1. Mandate and Client Focus: The applicant has previously demonstrated experience in providing the requested services targeted to the client group identified by the CFP [insert specifics]; OR, in providing the requested or similar services to a different client group; OR, in providing different services to the identified client group. (See Section 2.2 – A.1 of the Guide for Applicants.)
|
15 |
15% |
|
|
Scoring Guide
The applicant has experience delivering youth employability skills activities and understanding the needs of youth, and the description provided is clear, complete, and detailed. The applicant’s mandate and background are described in detail and have demonstrated an appropriate and stable governance structure and financial stability. |
10-15 |
|
|
|
The applicant has some experience providing the desired services and has some understanding of clients needs but to a lesser degree, or little information is given. The applicant’s mandate and background are included but lack detail. Or The applicant has little or no experience delivering youth employability skills activities and understanding the needs of youth, but the applicant’s mandate and background are described in detail and they have demonstrated an appropriate and stable governance structure and financial stability. |
6-9 |
||
|
The applicant has little or no experience delivering the desired services or supporting the particular client group. The applicant has provided no or little information on their mandate and background |
0-5 |
||
|
A.2. Past Projects and Their Achievements: Past projects and their achievements (program results) indicate that the applicant has the organizational capacity to deliver the proposed service, including the appropriate internal policies and procedures to support the project (human resource planning, staff training and development, complaint resolution, IM/IT, conflict of interest guidelines, etc.). (See Section 2.2 – A.2 of the Guide.)
|
10 |
10% |
|
|
Note: When assessing this factor references will also be considered. Scoring Guide The applicant has demonstrated success in achieving agreed-upon results on past projects and/or initiatives (more than one) funded by either HRSDC/SERVICE CANADA or other funders |
7-10 |
|
|
|
The applicant has delivered only one successful project OR has been only partially successful in achieving agreed-upon results on past projects/initiatives. |
4-6 |
||
|
The applicant has no experience delivering projects/initiatives of a similar nature, OR did not achieve the expected results, OR has provided little or no information.
|
0-3 |
||
|
A.3 Financial Management: The applicant has demonstrated the ability to successfully administer/manage funding from HRSDC/SERVICE CANADA, other government departments, charitable organizations, and/or private sector partners.
|
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide The applicant’s financial controls and bookkeeping practices are clearly described and are suitable for the project(s) in question. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
The applicant’s (past) financial controls/bookkeeping practices appear sound, but the description lacks some elements. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
The applicant does not mention or had inadequate financial controls. |
0-1 |
|
|
|
Total – Organizational Experience |
|
30% |
|
|
B. Proposed Service Delivery Approach and Activities
|
|
|
|
|
B.1 The applicant’s plan to manage the project includes clear objectives and a detailed implementation plan/workflow with appropriate and realistic milestones. Service will be provided in both official languages where required.
|
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant’s plan to manage project is clear, complete and will likely lead to successful implementation of the project: it contains monthly or quarterly milestones; it outlines a plan to monitor project achievements regularly and adjust activities if necessary. It includes tools and supports such as client assessment tools, and a method to measure, monitor and report each client’s progress and achievements and the overall success of the project both during and after the project. Project objectives are clear, concise, and achievable. Service will be provided in both official languages where required. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s plan to manage project is somewhat clear, is missing some elements, and/or may need modifications in order to ensure successful implementation. Service will be provided in both official languages where required. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s plan to manage project is unclear, is missing a number of essential elements, and will likely not be sufficient to ensure successful implementation. Service cannot be offered in the two official languages as required.
|
0-1 |
|
|
|
B.2 The proposal includes plans/activities on how outcomes/results outlined in the Guide will be achieved in the context of the project. The applicant has described a suitable plan to monitor achievement of results and adjust workplans as required. (See Section 2.3 – B.2 of the Guide) |
5 |
5%
|
|
|
Scoring Guide Proposed results are clear, complete and measurable – for example: provide employability skills and/or work experience to xxx eligible youth (must be within range specified for CFP). Specific examples of expected results include the following:
Applicant has appropriate system to measure, monitor, and report client progress and project success, including a plan to review and adjust activities if targets are not being met (i.e. regular project reports). |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Proposed results are somewhat confusing, are missing some elements, and/or are not all measurable. Proposed system to measure, monitor and report on project results is missing some elements, but could be adequate with a few minor modifications. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Proposed results are unclear, not measurable, or missing a significant number of elements. Proposed system is unclear or missing a significant number of elements.
|
0-1 |
|
|
|
B.3 The proposal includes appropriate service standards (e.g. client satisfaction, speed of service, quality, resource maintenance, handling complaints, resolving IT problems etc.). (See Section 2.3 – B.3 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant has clear and appropriate service standards related to:
|
3 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s service standards are somewhat confusing or are missing some elements. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s service standards are unclear or are missing a significant number of elements.
|
0 |
|
|
|
B.4 The facility to be used is suitable for the proposed activities (e.g. appropriate size and location, fully accessible). (See Section 2.3 – B.4 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Proposed facility is appropriate in terms of amount of space and accessibility for employees and clients, for example:
|
3 |
|
|
|
Proposed facility is somewhat small and not as accessible. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Proposed facility is inappropriate in terms of size and/or accessibility.
|
0 |
|
|
|
B.5 Overall, the proposal is practical and feasible, and meets the objectives and priorities of the program. (See Section 2.3 – B.5 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Clear evidence that applicant understands the community and YES Skills Link criteria and priorities, and has an appropriate plan to handle clients who do not meet the eligibility criteria.
|
3 |
|
|
|
Some evidence that applicant understands our criteria and has a plan for ineligible clients. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Little or no evidence. |
0 |
|
|
|
B.6 [Insert assessment factors specific to the activity outlined in the CFP – one or more – adjust percentages as required]. (See Section 2.3 – B.6 of the Guide)
|
11 |
11% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL – Service Delivery Approach and Activities |
|
30% |
|
|
C. Proposed Human Resource Plan
|
|
|
|
|
C.1 The applicant has identified and provided a sound rationale for the number and categories of staff (management, officers, support staff) with clear roles and responsibilities based on scope of work/service delivery model. |
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Ratio of management and staff appropriate. Ratio of staff to clients is appropriate based on the service delivery model involved. |
3 |
|
|
|
Ratio could be appropriate with minor modifications. Ratio of staff to clients may be appropriate with a few minor modifications. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Ratio is inappropriate (e.g. significantly heavy in management or other staff). Ratio of staff to clients appears unreasonable, or unable to assess |
0 |
|
|
|
C. 2 The applicant has appropriate human resource policies in place for the project (e.g. pay and benefits, leave, professional development, travel, employment equity, accommodation for persons with disabilities, etc.). |
2 |
2% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant has appropriate human resource policies and procedures for the project:
|
2 |
|
|
|
HR policies and procedures are missing some elements, but could be adequate with a few minor modifications. |
1 |
|
|
|
HR policies and procedures are unclear or are missing a number of key elements.
|
0 |
|
|
|
C. 3 The applicant already has experienced/qualified project staff with the appropriate job-related and language skills (English and/or French as appropriate), OR has a suitable plan to recruit and orient them (including details on required qualifications, hiring process, and training). |
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant has qualified and experienced project employees with appropriate job-related skills (manager/ coordinator, job developers, and/or support staff) on staff, OR has a suitable plan to recruit and orient them (including details on required qualifications, hiring process, training).. Applicant has the staff with the official language capacity to deliver activities/services. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Applicant has recently identified project staff with suitable qualifications OR has a recruitment and orientation plan that may be suitable with a few modifications. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Applicant has not yet identified project staff, and has not outlined a plan to recruit and train them.
|
0-1 |
|
|
|
TOTAL – Human Resource Plan
|
|
10% |
|
|
D. Proposed Community/Labour Market Knowledge |
|
|
|
|
D.1 The applicant has demonstrated how the project links to labour market needs by clearly showing that the applicant understands the labour market needs and priorities and the community to be served. The applicant’s mandate relates directly or indirectly to the client group and/or activities targeted by this CFP |
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide The proposal incorporates clear evidence that applicant understands the needs of the community to be served e.g. provides geographic, socio-economic, labour market data; understands both the supply and demand sides and has applied their knowledge in linking the particular project to the community needs. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Some evidence. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Little or no evidence. |
0-1 |
|
|
|
D. 2 The applicant has a suitable plan to integrate service with existing resources and programs in the community. (See Section 2.5 – D.2 of the Guide).
|
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Clear evidence that the applicant has applied their understanding of the existing programs and resources in the community in a way that shows that clients will be referred appropriately. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Some evidence. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Little or no evidence. |
0-1 |
|
|
|
TOTAL – Community/Labour Market Knowledge |
|
10% |
|
|
E. Budget |
|
|
|
|
E1. The project costs are eligible, itemized, and reasonable and support the project activities either directly or indirectly (Budget Template, Cash Flow Forecast). EITHER the proposed activity does not involve subcontracting, OR the rationale and process for selecting sub-contractors is clear. (See Section 2.6 – E.1 of the Guide)
|
6 |
6% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Costs are itemized and directly relate to proposed activities and may require some negotiation. Cash flow is complete and reasonable in relation to proposed activities. Applicant’s proposal does NOT involve sub-contracting, OR applicant has a reasonable process to select the sub-contractors, so as to avoid any perception of conflict of interest and achieve value for money. |
5-6 |
|
|
|
Costs are itemized and most relate to proposed activities. Applicant’s process for selecting sub-contracting may be suitable with minor modifications. |
2-4 |
|
|
|
Costs aren’t clearly itemized and/or don’t relate to proposed activities. Applicant has not specified the process to be used to select the sub-contractors, or it is inadequate.
|
0-1 |
|
|
|
E2. Client costs (also known as Type 1.B. Costs) versus all other project costs (Type 1.A,. 1.C. and 2. Costs) are reasonable OR within percentage range if stated and are reflective of prevailing rates within the community (Budget Template). (See Section 2.6 – E.2 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Client costs vs. all other project costs are reasonable in relation to overall project activities and costs. May require some negotiation. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Client costs vs. all project costs are high in relation to overall project activities and costs. Will require negotiation. |
0-1 |
|
|
|
E3. Staff wage rates are within acceptable range according to local labour market information (Budget Template). (See Section 2.6 – E.3 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Proposed wages are reasonable and reflective of prevailing wage rates |
3 |
|
|
|
Proposed wages may be reasonable but require negotiation |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Proposed wages are unreasonable |
0 |
|
|
|
E4. Capital Costs and all other project costs are reasonable and relevant to the project (Budget Template, Cash Flow Forecast). (See Section 2.6 – E.4 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide There are no capital costs, OR capital costs are necessary to achieve project objectives and are reasonable. |
3 |
|
|
|
There are capital costs necessary that require some modification. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Capital costs are unnecessary in relation to project objectives or are unreasonable. |
0 |
|
|
|
E.5 Sound administrative and financial management processes in place to manage project budget including adequate financial controls (e.g. re. good bookkeeping procedures, signing authorities, audits). |
4 |
4% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Clear evidence that applicant has adequate financial controls in place:
|
3-4 |
|
|
|
Some evidence; some elements missing. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Little or no evidence. |
0 |
|
|
|
E.6 The applicant or another funder is making a financial or in-kind contribution to the project and this contribution has been confirmed. (See Section 2.6 – E.6 of the Guide)
|
1 |
1% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant or other partners are making a financial contribution OR Applicant or other partners are making an in-kind contribution. Applicant’s or other partners’ contribution (in cash or in kind) represents _______% of total project costs. |
1 |
|
|
|
HRSDC/SERVICE CANADA is being requested to cover 100% of the project costs. |
0 |
|
|
|
TOTAL – Budget |
|
20% |
|
|
GRAND TOTAL |
100 |
100% |
|
|
Maximum Score |
Applicant’s Score |
|
A – Organizational Experience |
30 |
|
|
B – Service Delivery Approach and Activities |
30 |
|
|
C – Human Resource Plan |
10 |
|
|
D – Community/Labour Market Knowledge |
10 |
|
|
E – Budget |
20 |
|
|
Grand Total (A+B+C+D+E) |
100 |
|
|
Percentage of Total |
100% |
|
|
ADDITONAL NOTES: |
|
|
6.4 Career Focus Assessment Grid
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GRID
FOR YOUTH EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY (YES)
CAREER FOCUS PROGRAM (Annex 6A)
CFP-REGION-0506-[Location]-xxx
|
Applicant: |
HRSDC File #: |
|
Assessor: |
Date: |
|
Application Eligibility: |
YES |
NO |
|
1. Application received no later than stated closing date/time for this CFP. |
|
|
|
2. All the required documents provided as specified in the Guide for Applicants and Applicant has provided 4 paper copies of complete application package, plus 1 diskette.)
|
|
|
|
3. References (person with knowledge of the organizations financial and skill capacity - full name, address and telephone number provided) |
|
|
|
4. Original application signed by organization’s legal signing authority (-ies). |
|
|
|
5. Applicant meets eligibility criteria (outlined in Section 2.1, 5 of the Guide for Applicants). |
|
|
|
6. Proposal meets CFP requirements in terms of clients identified and range of funding and location(s) of service outlined in the CFP. |
|
|
|
If there is a “no” response to any of the questions above, this application will not be considered further.
|
||
|
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT |
Max Score | % of Total | Notes |
|
A. Organizational Experience |
|
|
|
|
A.1. Mandate and Client Focus: The applicant has previously demonstrated experience in providing the requested services targeted to the client group identified by the CFP [insert specifics]; OR, in providing the requested or similar services to a different client group; OR, in providing different services to the identified client group. (See Section 2.2 – A.1 of the Guide for Applicants.)
|
15 |
15% |
|
|
Scoring Guide
The applicant has experience delivering youth employability skills activities and understanding the needs of youth, and the description provided is clear, complete, and detailed. The applicant’s mandate and background are described in detail and have demonstrated an appropriate and stable governance structure and financial stability. |
10-15 |
|
|
|
The applicant has some experience providing the desired services and has some understanding of participants needs but to a lesser degree, or little information is given. The applicant’s mandate and background are included but lack detail. Or The applicant has little or no experience delivering youth employability skills activities and understanding the needs of youth, but the applicant’s mandate and background are described in detail and they have demonstrated an appropriate and stable governance structure and financial stability. |
6-9 |
||
|
The applicant has little or no experience delivering the desired services or supporting the particular participant group. The applicant has provided no or little information on their mandate and background |
0-5 |
||
|
A.2. Past Projects and Their Achievements: Past projects and their achievements (program results) indicate that the applicant has the organizational capacity to deliver the proposed service, including the appropriate internal policies and procedures to support the project (human resource planning, staff training and development, complaint resolution, IM/IT, conflict of interest guidelines, etc.). (See Section 2.2 – A.2 of the Guide.)
|
10 |
10% |
|
|
Note: When assessing this factor references will also be considered. Scoring Guide The applicant has demonstrated success in achieving agreed-upon results on past projects and/or initiatives (more than one) funded by either HRSDC/Service Canada or other funders |
7-10 |
|
|
|
The applicant has delivered only one successful project OR has been only partially successful in achieving agreed-upon results on past projects/initiatives. |
4-6 |
||
|
The applicant has no experience delivering projects/initiatives of a similar nature, OR did not achieve the expected results, OR has provided little or no information.
|
0-3 |
||
|
A.3 Financial Management: The applicant has demonstrated the ability to successfully administer/manage funding from HRSDC/Service Canada, other government departments, charitable organizations, and/or private sector partners.
|
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide The applicant’s financial controls and bookkeeping practices are clearly described and are suitable for the project(s) in question. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
The applicant’s (past) financial controls/bookkeeping practices appear sound, but the description lacks some elements. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
The applicant does not mention or had inadequate financial controls. |
0-1 |
|
|
|
Total – Organizational Experience
|
|
30% |
|
|
B. Proposed Service Delivery Approach and Activities
|
|
|
|
|
B.1 The applicant’s plan to manage the project includes clear objectives and a detailed implementation plan/workflow with appropriate and realistic milestones. Service will be provided in both official languages where required.
|
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant’s plan to manage project is clear, complete and will likely lead to successful implementation of the project: it contains monthly or quarterly milestones; it outlines a plan to monitor project achievements regularly and adjust activities if necessary. It includes tools and supports such as client assessment, a method to measure, monitor, and report each participant’s progress and achievements and the overall success of the project both during and after the project. Project objectives are clear, concise, and achievable. Service will be provided in both official languages where required. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s plan to manage project is somewhat clear, is missing some elements, and/or may need modifications in order to ensure successful implementation. Service will be provided in both official languages where required. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s plan to manage project is unclear, is missing a number of essential elements, and will likely not be sufficient to ensure successful implementation. Service cannot be offered in the two official languages as required.
|
0-1 |
|
|
|
B.2 The proposal includes plans/activities on how outcomes/results outlined in the Guide will be achieved in the context of the project. The applicant has described a suitable plan to monitor achievement of results and adjust workplans as required. (See Section 2.3 – B.2 of the Guide) |
5 |
5%
|
|
|
Scoring Guide Proposed results are clear, complete, and measurable – for example: provide employability skills and/or work experience to xxx eligible youth (must be within range specified for CFP). Specific examples of expected results include the following:
Applicant has appropriate system to measure, monitor, and report participant progress and project success, including a plan to review and adjust activities if targets are not being met (i.e. regular project reports). |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Proposed results are somewhat confusing, are missing some elements, and/or are not all measurable. Proposed system to measure, monitor, and report on project results is missing some elements, but could be adequate with a few minor modifications. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Proposed results are unclear, not measurable, or missing a significant number of elements. Proposed system is unclear or missing a significant number of elements.
|
0-1 |
|
|
|
B.3 The proposal includes appropriate service standards (e.g. participant satisfaction, speed of service, quality, resource maintenance, handling complaints, resolving IT problems etc.). (See Section 2.3 – B.3 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant has clear and appropriate service standards related to:
|
3 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s service standards are somewhat confusing or are missing some elements. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s service standards are unclear or are missing a significant number of elements.
|
0 |
|
|
|
B.4 The facility to be used is suitable for the proposed activities (e.g. appropriate size and location, fully accessible). (See Section 2.3 – B.4 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Proposed facility is appropriate in terms of amount of space and accessibility for participants; for example:
|
3 |
|
|
|
Proposed facility is somewhat small and not as accessible. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Proposed facility is inappropriate in terms of size and/or accessibility.
|
0 |
|
|
|
B.5 Overall, the proposal is practical and feasible, and meets the objectives and priorities of the program. (See Section 2.3 – B.5 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Clear evidence that applicant understands the community and YES Career Focus criteria and priorities, and has an appropriate plan to handle participants who do not meet the eligibility criteria.
|
3 |
|
|
|
Some evidence that applicant understands our criteria and has a plan for ineligible clients. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Little or no evidence. |
0 |
|
|
|
B.6 [Insert assessment factors specific to the activity outlined in the CFP – one or more – adjust percentages as required]. (See Section 2.3 – B.6 of the Guide)
|
11 |
11% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL – Service Delivery Approach and Activities |
|
30% |
|
|
C. Proposed Human Resource Plan
|
|
|
|
|
C.1 The applicant has identified and provided a sound rationale for the number and categories of staff (management, officers, support staff) with clear roles and responsibilities based on scope of work/service delivery model. |
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Ratio of management and staff appropriate. Ratio of staff to participants is appropriate based on the service delivery model involved. |
3 |
|
|
|
Ratio could be appropriate with minor modifications. Ratio of staff to participants may be appropriate with a few minor modifications. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Ratio is inappropriate (e.g. significantly heavy in management or other staff). Ratio of staff to participants appears unreasonable, or unable to assess. |
0 |
|
|
|
C. 2 The applicant has appropriate human resource policies in place for the project (e.g. pay and benefits, leave, professional development, travel, employment equity, accommodation for persons with disabilities, etc.). |
2 |
2% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant has appropriate human resource policies and procedures for the project:
|
2 |
|
|
|
HR policies and procedures are missing some elements, but could be adequate with a few minor modifications. |
1 |
|
|
|
HR policies and procedures are unclear or are missing a number of key elements.
|
0 |
|
|
|
C. 3 The applicant already has experienced/qualified project staff with the appropriate job-related and language skills (English and/or French as appropriate), OR has a suitable plan to recruit and orient them (including details on required qualifications, hiring process, and training). |
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant has qualified and experienced project employees with appropriate job-related skills (manager/ coordinator, job developers, and/or support staff) on staff, OR has a suitable plan to recruit and orient them (including details on required qualifications, hiring process, training).. Applicant has the staff with the official language capacity to deliver activities/services. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Applicant has recently identified project staff with suitable qualifications OR has a recruitment and orientation plan that may be suitable with a few modifications. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Applicant has not yet identified project staff, and has not outlined a plan to recruit and train them.
|
0-1 |
|
|
|
TOTAL – Human Resource Plan
|
|
10% |
|
|
D. Proposed Community/Labour Market Knowledge |
|
|
|
|
D.1 The applicant has demonstrated how the project links to labour market needs by clearly showing that the applicant understands the labour market needs and priorities and the community to be served. The applicant’s mandate relates directly or indirectly to the client group and/or activities targeted by this CFP |
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide The proposal incorporates clear evidence that applicant understands the needs of the community to be served e.g. provides geographic, socio-economic, labour market data; understands both the supply and demand sides and has applied their knowledge in linking the particular project to the community needs. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Some evidence. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Little or no evidence. |
0-1 |
|
|
|
D. 2 The applicant has a suitable plan to integrate service with existing resources and programs in the community. (See Section 2.5 – D.2 of the Guide). |
5 |
5% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Clear evidence that the applicant has applied their understanding of the existing programs and resources in the community in a way that shows that clients will be referred appropriately. |
4-5 |
|
|
|
Some evidence. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Little or no evidence. |
0-1 |
|
|
|
TOTAL – Community/Labour Market Knowledge |
|
10% |
|
|
E. Budget |
|
|
|
|
E1. The project costs are eligible, itemized, and reasonable and support the project activities either directly or indirectly (Budget Template, Cash Flow Forecast). EITHER the proposed activity does not involve subcontracting, OR the rationale and process for selecting sub-contractors is clear. (See Section 2.6 – E.1 of the Guide)
|
6 |
6% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Costs are itemized and directly relate to proposed activities and may require some negotiation. Cash flow is complete and reasonable in relation to proposed activities. Applicant’s proposal does NOT involve sub-contracting, OR applicant has a reasonable process to select the sub-contractors, so as to avoid any perception of conflict of interest and achieve value for money. |
5-6 |
|
|
|
Costs are itemized and most relate to proposed activities. Applicant’s process for selecting sub-contracting may be suitable with minor modifications. |
2-4 |
|
|
|
Costs aren’t clearly itemized and/or don’t relate to proposed activities. Applicant has not specified the process to be used to select the sub-contractors, or it is inadequate.
|
0-1 |
|
|
|
E2. Participant costs (also known as Type 1.B. Costs) versus all other project costs (Type 1.A,. 1.C. and 2. Costs) are reasonable OR within percentage range if stated and are reflective of prevailing rates within the community (Budget Template). (See Section 2.6 – E.2 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Participant costs vs. all other project costs are reasonable in relation to overall project activities and costs. May require some negotiation. |
2-3 |
|
|
|
Participant costs vs. all project costs are high in relation to overall project activities and costs. Will require negotiation. |
0-1 |
|
|
|
E3. Staff wage rates are within acceptable range according to local labour market information (Budget Template). (See Section 2.6 – E.3 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Proposed wages are reasonable and reflective of prevailing wage rates |
3 |
|
|
|
Proposed wages may be reasonable but require negotiation |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Proposed wages are unreasonable |
0 |
|
|
|
E4. Capital Costs and all other project costs are reasonable and relevant to the project (Budget Template, Cash Flow Forecast). (See Section 2.6 – E.4 of the Guide)
|
3 |
3% |
|
|
Scoring Guide There are no capital costs, OR capital costs are necessary to achieve project objectives and are reasonable. |
3 |
|
|
|
There are capital costs necessary that require some modification. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Capital costs are unnecessary in relation to project objectives or are unreasonable. |
0 |
|
|
|
E.5 Sound administrative and financial management processes in place to manage project budget including adequate financial controls (e.g. re. good bookkeeping procedures, signing authorities, audits). |
4 |
4% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Clear evidence that applicant has adequate financial controls in place:
|
3-4 |
|
|
|
Some evidence; some elements missing. |
1-2 |
|
|
|
Little or no evidence. |
0 |
|
|
|
E.6 The applicant or another funder is making a financial or in-kind contribution to the project and this contribution has been confirmed. (See Section 2.6 – E.6 of the Guide)
|
1 |
1% |
|
|
Scoring Guide Applicant or other partners are making a financial contribution OR Applicant or other partners are making an in-kind contribution. Applicant’s or other partners’ contribution (in cash or in kind) represents _______% of total project costs. |
1 |
|
|
|
HRSDC is being requested to cover 100% of the project costs. |
0 |
|
|
|
TOTAL – Budget |
|
20% |
|
|
GRAND TOTAL |
100 |
100% |
|
|
Maximum Score |
Applicant’s Score |
|
A – Organizational Experience |
30 |
|
|
B – Service Delivery Approach and Activities |
30 |
|
|
C – Human Resource Plan |
10 |
|
|
D – Community/Labour Market Knowledge |
10 |
|
|
E – Budget |
20 |
|
|
Grand Total (A+B+C+D+E) |
100 |
|
|
Percentage of Total |
100% |
|
|
ADDITONAL NOTES: |
|
|
<- Previous page | Table of Content | Call for Proposal Page | Next page ->
