SAP Ariba system maintenance

SAP Ariba will be unavailable for scheduled maintenance at the times listed below. We apologize for any inconvenience.

  • Friday, June 21 from 3:00 pm until 7:00 pm (Eastern Time) 
  • Saturday, June 22 from 6:00 pm until Sunday, June 23 12:00 am (Eastern Time) 

Audio Visual Production Services

Solicitation number EN578-150098/A

Publication date

Closing date and time 2014/07/10 14:00 EDT


    Description
    Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
    Tendering Procedures: 
    Attachment: None
    Competitive Procurement Strategy: Best Overall  Proposal
    Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
    Nature of Requirements: 
    REQUEST FOR INDUSTRY COMMENTS (RFIC) ON A 
    REQUEST FOR STANDING OFFERS / REQUEST FOR SUPPLY ARRANGEMENTS
    FOR AUDIO-VISUAL PRODUCTION SERVICES 
    FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
    
    Responses must be submitted by 
    2:00 pm Eastern Daylight Savings Time on July 10, 2014
    
    
    INTRODUCTION
    
    This procurement is being conducted under the Smart Procurement
    approach and seeks to engage
    industry early in the process to better understand both needs
    and available solutions prior to the
    finalization of requirements. This RFIC is to initiate
    engagement with industry and seek interest from potential
    suppliers in participating in an information session. The
    content of this RFI is intended to provide industry with initial
    context and details pertaining to PWGSC's next procurement
    vehicle for the provision of Audio Visual Production Services.
    PWGSC intends to engage with industry at large and potential
    users of the solution separately.
    
    The purpose of the Information Session is to present Industry
    representatives with information about the proposed procurement
    approach for Audio Visual Production Services, an overview of
    the current requirements, and its future objectives for the
    consultative engagement process. The Information Session is
    intended to be an open forum allowing PWGSC to communicate, with
    interested suppliers, its requirements at a high level, and for
    Industry to ask questions and seek information in order to gain
    a sound understanding of the proposed procurement approach. 
    
    Suppliers interested in participating in the information session
    are asked to provide the names, e-mail addresses and phone
    numbers of all proposed attendees with their RFIC submission. It
    is anticipated that the Information Session will be held at 350
    Albert Street in Ottawa on July 22, 2014 at 10:00AM.
    
    Suppliers should also be aware that the Procurement Strategy for
    Communications Services will also apply to any resulting
    procurement process.
    
    1.	NATURE OF REQUEST FOR INDUSTRY COMMENTS
    
    This is not a bid solicitation. This RFIC will not result in the
    award of any contract, therefore, potential suppliers of any
    goods or services described in the attached project outline
    should not earmark stock or facilities, nor allocate resources,
    as a result of any information contained in this RFIC. Nor will
    this RFIC result in the creation of any source list, therefore,
    whether or not any potential supplier responds to this RFIC will
    not preclude that supplier from participating in any future
    procurement. Also, the procurement of any of the goods and
    services described in this RFIC will not necessarily follow this
    RFIC. This RFIC is simply intended to solicit feedback from
    industry with respect to the matters described in this RFIC.
    
    2.		NATURE AND FORMAT OF RESPONSES REQUESTED
    
    Respondents are requested to provide their comments, concerns
    and, where applicable, recommendations on how the requirements
    or objectives described in the project outline could be
    satisfied. Respondents should explain any assumptions they make
    in their responses.
    
    3.		RESPONSE COSTS
    
    Canada will not reimburse any respondent for expenses incurred
    in responding to this RFIC.
    
    4.			TREATMENT OF RESPONSES:
    
    i.	Use of Responses:  Responses will not be formally evaluated.
    However, the responses received may be used by Canada to modify
    procurement strategies or any draft documents contained in this
    RFIC. Canada will review all responses received by the RFIC
    closing date. Canada may, in its discretion, review responses
    received after the RFIC closing date.
    
    ii.	Review Team:  A review team composed of representatives from
    PWGSC will review the responses on behalf of Canada. Canada
    reserves the right to hire any independent consultant, or use
    any Government resources, which it deems necessary to review any
    response. Not all members of the review team will necessarily
    review all responses.
    
    iii.	Confidentiality:  Respondents should mark any portions of
    their response that they consider proprietary or confidential.
    Canada will treat those portions of the responses as
    confidential to the extent permitted by the Access to
    Information Act.
    iv.	Follow-up Activity:  Canada may, in its discretion, contact
    any respondents to follow up with additional questions or for
    clarification of any aspect of a response.
    
    5.		CONTENT OF THIS RFIC
    
    This RFIC contains the evaluation criteria from the previous
    Request for Supply Arrangements (RFSA). This document remains a
    work in progress and respondents should not assume that new
    clauses or requirements will not be added to any bid
    solicitation that is ultimately published by Canada. Nor should
    respondents assume that none of the clauses or requirements will
    be deleted or revised. Comments regarding any aspect of the
    proposed procurement are welcome.
    
    6.		ENQUIRIES
    
    Because this is not a bid solicitation, Canada will not
    necessarily respond to enquiries in writing or by circulating
    answers to all potential suppliers. However, respondents with
    questions regarding this RFIC may direct their enquiries to:
    
    Robert Pelot at (613) 990-6842 or by email at:
    robert.pelot@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca
    
    7.			SUBMISSION OF RESPONSES
    
    i.	Time and Place for Submission of Responses:  Suppliers
    interested in providing a response should deliver it directly to
    the Contracting Authority by the time and date indicated on page
    1 of this solicitation document. The preferred method of
    response is by e-mail at: 
    
    robert.pelot@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca
    
    ii.	Responsibility for Timely Delivery: Timely delivery and
    correct direction of responses is the sole responsibility of the
    respondent. PWGSC will not assume or have transferred to it
    those responsibilities.
    
    If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the
    Contracting Officer named above.
    
    
    
    8.			SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:
    
    1.	Is the evaluation criteria appropriate?
    2.	Are there major risks of which the Procurement Project team
    should be aware?
    3.	Is the contracting approach appropriate?  If not, why not?
    4.	Is a Supply Arrangement with an unlimited number of suppliers
    (as is currently in use) the best methodology for this commodity
    or would a Standing Offer with Holders being selected for
    Call-ups based on a rotational system be more appropriate? Would
    any other system be preferable?
    5.	Considering that the government's requirements for these
    services has declined in the past few years, would it be more
    practical to limit the number of pre-qualified suppliers and
    limit the number of refreshes to one after two years in use?
    6.	Are there any requirements and/or items that would unduly
    limit a qualified vendor's ability to submit a response?
    
    9.		QUESTIONS RELATING TO GREEN PROCUREMENT:
    
    Suppliers are requested to provide comments on the following:
    
    7.	Can surplus assets be used for any portion of the work?8.	Is
    it feasible to require in the RFSO/RFSA that Offerors/Suppliers
    provide a listing of environmental attributes offered within
    their goods/services proposed, which will form part of any
    resulting Standing Offer / Supply Arrangement?
    9.	When will carbon assessments for audio-visual production
    companies be feasible?
    10.	Which renewable fuels / energy sources for use in travel are
    currently being employed?
    11.	What is the feasibility of imposing the environmental
    criteria outlined in the RFSO / RFSA on subcontractors?
    
    10.		ADDITIONAL GREEN PROCUREMENT ITEMS FOR COMMENT:
    
    Environmentally Preferable and Best in Class Audio-Visual
    Production Services:
    
    Environmentally preferable Audio-Visual Production Services:
    Ÿ	create a small carbon footprint;
    Ÿ	use whenever possible "green" utility power; 
    Ÿ	use renewable, recyclebable and/or reusable materials for sets;
    Ÿ	use hybrid vehicules and/or alternative fuels for travel;
    Ÿ	encourage green accomodations;
    Ÿ	use of paperless scripts; 
    Ÿ	use of digital filming; 
    Ÿ	use of materials that are energy efficient and are recyclable,
    reusable and are easily upgradable;
    Ÿ	use equipment that does not contain hazardous materials and
    meet environmental standards.
    
    'Best in class' audio-visual production services include the
    criteria above as well as:
    the creation of an event-wide environmental statement and
    mission; 
    create action plans for energy, materials and transportation
    sourcinf;
    inroll in green power programs and purchase carbon credits for
    carbon neutrality. 
    
    Green procurement actions that have been identified in research
    and that may be addressed in future solicitations:
    
    Ÿ	Carbon assessments for production companies;
    Ÿ	ENERGY STAR qualified (or equivalent) audio-visual equipment
    where applicable; and
    Ÿ	Renewable fuels / energy sources for use in travel or
    production sets.
    
    11.		REQUEST FOR STANDING OFFERS / REQUEST FOR SUPPLY
    ARRANGEMENTS:
    
    Please see attached evaluation criteria from the last RFSA in
    2010.
    
    
    Audio Visual Production Services
    Request For Supply Arrangements (RFSA)
    
    From 2010
    
    
    EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF SELECTION 
    
    1.	EVALUATION PROCEDURES
    a.	Offers will be assessed in accordance with the entire
    requirement of the Request for Supply Arrangement including all
    of the criteria stipulated herein.
    b.	An evaluation team composed of representatives of Canada will
    evaluate the arrangements.
    
    1.1.	TECHNICAL EVALUATION
    
    1.1.1	MANDATORY TECHNICAL CRITERIA
    
    	M.1	IDENTIFICATION OF THE FIRM
    The Supplier MUST identify the owners and management of the firm
    and the legal incorporated name as well as the organizational
    structure.  	
    
    	M.2	INTERNET SITE 
    Suppliers MUST have an Internet site that is accessible by
    Client Departments and Agencies. The purpose of this Internet
    site is to provide information on the services available and the
    Supplier's qualifications to provide those services. Therefore,
    in order to meet this mandatory requirement, the Supplier MUST
    have an Internet site and provide the active Internet address.  
    
    	M.3	SUPPLIER'S CHOICE - REGIONS OF SERVICES 
    Suppliers MUST complete Appendix"1" - Supplier's Choice -
    Regions of Services in order to identify for which region(s)
    they are providing the required services.
    
    	M.4	EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM (The demo samples will be rated
    under R.1)
    The Supplier MUST demonstrate their experience by submitting one
    (1) DVD or one (1) Blu-ray demo of at least four (4) samples
    produced and completed within the last five (5) years. The total
    running time of the samples MUST not exceed twenty (20) minutes
    in length. The productions MUST have been completed entirely by
    the Supplier in its original language under a contract with the
    public sector or private industry.
    
    One (1) of the samples MUST demonstrate the Suppliers ability to
    produce a video based audio-visual production for internal or
    external audiences for government (federal, provincial or
    municipal), for non-government organizations (NGA's) or be a
    corporate video.
    
    One (1) of the samples MUST demonstrate the Suppliers ability to
    produce an audio-visual production that was tailored and posted
    to the Internet or adapted for Internet use.    
    
    One (1) of the samples MUST demonstrate the Suppliers ability to
    work in both official languages (English and French).
    Productions that have voice-overs, fully narrated or subtitled
    are not acceptable to demonstrate bilingual capability. For
    added details, a bilingual production is one in which there is
    both English and French equally and substantively represented in
    the same production. An adaptation is where after a production
    is produced in one language, it is then adapted into the other
    language taking into consideration the social and cultural
    differences of the target language population. An adaptation is
    not a straight translation. 
    	
    OFFERS NOT MEETING ALL OF THE MANDATORY TECHNICAL CRITERIA WILL
    BE GIVEN NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION
    
    	1.1.2	POINT RATED TECHNICAL CRITERIA
    
    	R.1	EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM AND QUALITY OF SAMPLES PROVIDED
    		(Maximum  100 points - Minimum 70 points)
    
    The Supplier shall be assessed against the demo samples provided
    in accordance with M.4. 
    
    	The DVD demo should be able to be played on both a computer and
    a stand-alone player.
    
    	The demo should be menu driven.
    
    	To better understand the samples submitted for the mandatory
    criteria M4., the following information should also be provided
    for each sample. Please complete the Video Demo - "Proposed
    Project Fact Sheet" located in Appendix "2" . 
    
    Client;
    Client contact;
    Description and purpose of production;
    Target audience(s);
    Creative approach;
    Production dates; 
    Production budget;
    Project outcomes.
    	
    The video demo will be evaluated on the following rated criteria:
    	
    	R.1.1	Demo samples demonstrate creative and technical
    excellence (40 points).
    	
    	At a minimum, we are looking for the following criteria: your
    approach (is it attractive, creative, innovative or
    appropriate); the quality of images; quality and effectiveness
    of cinematography, the use of special effects and graphics; use
    of camera angles; lighting; editing; and effective use of music
    and sound.  
    
    	Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the demo
    samples:
    
    Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
    insufficient.
    Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
    provided and/or technically not acceptable. Less than
    established minimum.
    Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum.  All of the
    above mentionned criteria are acceptable. Meets the minimum for
    technical standards. Demo demonstrates some creativity and
    innovation. 
    Good (0.8 ):  Slightly exceeds the established minimum, with one
    or two criteria that are very good. Approach demonstrates
    creativity and innovation. 
    Very Good (0.9): The majority of the criteria are very good. One
    or two criteria may be excellent. Approach demonstrates very
    good creativity and innovation without being outstanding.
    Outstanding (1): Very unique, bold, and creative approach. Has
    excellent quality and use of images. Outstanding cinematography.
    Demo demonstrates excellent use of special effects and graphics
    and lighting. Has very appropriate use of music and sound.
    
    R.1.2	The effective use of treatment, script, language and
    visual techniques to communicate the themes and messages. (40
    points)
    	
    	At a minimum, we are looking for the following criteria:
    engaging and complete storyline, clear script, appropriate use
    of language, quality of translation, effective communication of
    content and messages both in narration and on-camera and use of
    other techniques to get the message across. The success in
    conveying messages in both English and French is equivalent. 
    
    	Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the
    Treatment, script, language and visual techniques:
    
    Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
    insufficient.
    Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
    provided and/or technically not acceptable. Less than
    established minimum.
    Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. All of the
    above mentionned criteria are acceptable, and meets the
    established minimum. The treatment, script, language and
    technique adequately help convey themes and messages. 
    Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum, with one
    or two criteria that are very good. Treatment, script, language
    and technique help convey the themes and messages. 
    Very Good (0.9): The majority of the criteria are very good. One
    or two criteria may be excellent. Treatment, script, language
    and techniques effectively communicate themes and messages
    without being outstanding.
    Outstanding (1): Outstanding delivery of content, themes and
    messages. Treatment, script, language and techniques are
    communicated very well, both in narration and on-camera.
    Appropriate techniques were used. 
    	
    	R.1.3	Demonstrate a wide variety of visual and dramatic
    devices, such as: graphic animation sequences;
    typography/on-screen text; motion graphics and animations; still
    imagery; imported (stock) film footage; off-camera and on-camera
    narration; music; sound and special effects (10 points).
    	
    	At a minimum, we are looking for the use of six (6) of the ten
    (10) above-mentioned visual or dramatic devices.
    
    	Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the visual
    and dramatic devices:
    
    Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
    insufficient.
    Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
    provided and/or technically not acceptable. Less than
    established minimum.
    Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. At least six
    (6) of the listed devices are effectively used, and the demo
    meets the established minimum. 
    Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum, with two
    (2) or three (3) of the devices that are very good. 
    Very Good (0.9):  The majority of the criteria are very good.
    Four (4) or five (5) criteria may be excellent, without being
    outstanding.  
    Outstanding (1): A very effective blend of six or more visual or
    dramatic devices and are relevant to the subject matter. The
    quality and effectiveness of at least six (6) devices are
    outstanding.
    
    R.1.4 	The audio-visual production outcomes. (10 points) 
    
    	At a minimum, the Supplier should describe the success of the
    projects. What was the feedback from the audience, if any? We
    are aware that many Suppliers are not in control of evaluating
    the projects success/use, nor always able to monitor audience
    feedback, however a written and signed client testimonial on how
    the video's were used and received would suffice. 
    	
    	Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the outcome
    of the videos:
    
    Not acceptable (0): The information provided was unsuitable or
    insufficient.
    Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed, but not enough information
    provided and/or technically not acceptable. Less than
    established minimum.
    Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum.  The supplier
    communicated in an approriate manner the outcome of the
    projects.  
    Good (0.8): The supplier communicated its subject matter in a
    manner that is rather effective and appropriate of the outcome
    of the projects. 
    Very Good (0.9):  The supplier communicated its subject matter
    that is very effective and appropriate of the outcome of the
    projects. Very good details were provided. The client
    testimonial confirmed the high level of audience acceptace.
    Outstanding (1): The supplier communicated its subject matter
    that is excellent and appropriate of the outcome of the
    projects. Outstanding details were provided. The client
    testimonial confirmed the high level of audience acceptace.
    
    2.	BASIS OF SELECTION
    
    2.1	Minimum Point Rating
    1.	To be declared responsive, a supplier must:
    
    a.	comply with all the requirements of the Request for Supply
    Arrangement (RFSA); and
    b.	meet all mandatory technical evaluation criteria; and
    c.	obtain the required minimum of 70 percent of the available
    points for each rated criteria and an overall passing mark of 80
    points on a scale of 100 points.
    
    2.	Suppliers not meeting (a) or (b) or (c) above will be
    declared non-responsive.  
    
    3.	The five (5) fully responsive Suppliers with the highest
    point rating will be listed as the "Primary" list of Supply
    Arrangement Holders. The three (3) fully responsive offers with
    the highest point rating from each region will be listed as the
    "Regional Primary" list of Supply Arrangement Holders. 
    
    4.	All other fully responsive suppliers and all fully responsive
    Aboriginal suppliers will be listed on the "Standard" list of
    Supply Arrangement Holders. A separate list will be created for
    Aboriginal suppliers under the Set-Aside Program for Aboriginal
    Business. 
    5.	There is no limit to the number of Supply Arrangement's to be
    put in place.
    
    
    ANNEX "D"
    DETAILED PROCESS FOR REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
    ISSUED UNDER THE SUPPLY ARRANGEMENT
    
    
    1.	STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) - DEFINING THE REQUIREMENT  
    The first step is to determine the requirement and prepare a SOW
    for a specific work requirement. The information in the SOW
    should be in sufficient detail to enable the SA Holders to
    provide accurate estimates of cost/price, required level of
    effort, other direct costs, schedules for milestones and
    deliverables with completion dates and the total price. SOWs for
    professional services will, to the extent possible, indicate the
    required resource categories along with the estimated number of
    hours required for each resource. The SOW should clearly define
    the specific requirements being procured.  
    
    2.	EVALUATION CRITERIA
    The evaluation criteria will be delineated in the Mini request
    for proposal (Mini-RFP) or the Request for Proposals (RFP). 
    Evaluation criteria will be categorized either as mandatory or
    as rated evaluation criteria.  Associated weighting factors with
    regard to rated requirements will be identified.  Evaluation
    criteria can be subject to both a mandatory and a point rated
    evaluation system.
    
    2.1	Mandatory Evaluation Criteria 
    Mandatory evaluation criteria identify at the outset the minimum
    requirements for bids to be considered. Mandatory evaluation
    criteria are evaluated on a simple pass/fail basis. When
    mandatory evaluation criteria are used, the Mini-RFP/RFP will
    clearly indicate that failure to meet any of the mandatory
    criteria will render the bid non-compliant and that it will be
    given no further consideration. Mandatory criteria will be
    expressed by using imperative verbs such as "must" and "will". 
    
    2.2	Point Rated Evaluation Criteria 
    The Mini-RFP/RFP will clearly state all evaluation factors and
    their relative importance. Point rated evaluation criteria will
    be used to establish the minimum requirements (by setting a
    passing mark) that a bid must meet to be considered a valid and
    responsive proposal. The evaluation can be set to include an
    overall pass mark for proposals or pass mark for each individual
    evaluation criterion, and/or a group of criteria.
    
    Point rated criteria identify those elements that can be
    evaluated on a variety of characteristics to determine the
    relative technical merit of each proposal.
    
    3.	BASIS OF SELECTION 
    The highest point rated proposal within a specified budget will
    be selected. With this selection method, the supplier who has
    provided a firm price that is within the project budget and who
    has received the highest point rating for their technical
    proposal will be recommended for contract award. 
    
    4.	BASIS OF PAYMENT
    A Firm Price contract will be used.  Multiple invoice payments
    will be permitted.
    
    5.	STEPS IN THE RFP PROCESS FOR ALL COMPETED REQUIREMENTS
    The Mini-RFP/RFP as issued by the PWGSC Contracting Authority
    will include a Statement of Work (SOW), the evaluation criteria,
    the basis of selection and a bid closing date. The Mini-RFP/RFP
    will be sent electronically to SA Holders via e-mail. 
    
    
    There are two tiers of solicitation processes under the Supply
    Arrangements. The first is a Mini Request for Proposals
    (Mini-RFP) and the second is the Request for Proposals (RFP)
    under the Supply Arrangements.
    
    A Mini-RFP is used for requirements valued at more than $25,000
    including applicable taxes but less than $200,000 excluding
    applicable taxes. The following Supply Arrangement Holders will
    be invited to participate in the solicitation process:
    
    1.	One of the "Primary" Suppliers picked on a rotational basis;
    and
    2.	One Supply Arrangement holder as recommended by the Client;
    and
    3.	One of the "Regional Primary" Suppliers picked on a
    rotational basis; and
    4.	One Supply Arrangement Holder selected at random by PWGSC. 
    The "random" selection will be made using the RAND () function
    in Microsoft Excel, all of which are determined in accordance
    with the Basis of Selection at article 2 in Part 4 of the
    solicitation document.
    
    NOTE:  A supplier can only be chosen once per Mini-RFP even if
    that supplier is named under all three levels. In other words, a
    different supplier must be chosen in other levels; for example,
    if you choose Company A under the "Primary"suppliers list, you
    must choose any other supplier (the next supplier in the
    rotation) under the level for "Regional Primary" and another
    supplier for the level for "Standard" per Mini-RFP.
    
    As a result and as much as possible, all Mini-RFPs will have at
    least four separate bidders to maintain fair competition.
    
    An RFP Under the Supply Arrangements is used for requirements
    valued at more than $200,000 but less than $400,000 excluding
    applicable taxes. All Supply Arrangement Holders will be invited
    to submit a proposal for this solicitation process.
    
    Overall, individual contracts under the Supply Arrangements must
    not exceed $400,000.00 (Goods and Services Tax or Harmonized
    Sales Tax excluding).
    
    As indicated in the Mini-RFP or the RFP, the SA Holder will be
    required to submit a proposal within the specified time frame.
    The time frame will be determined based on the complexity of the
    requirement.
    
    As requested, the SA Holder will submit a proposal only to
    Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) Bid
    Receiving Unit by the date, time and place indicated in the
    Mini-RFP or RFP. The Bidder's proposal is not intended to
    duplicate the SOW, but rather to offer a description of how and
    when the Bidder proposes to satisfy the requirement, along with
    the proposed prices for doing so. 
    
    Bidders may request written clarification of Mini-RFP/RFP
    requirements. Such requests for clarification will be sent to
    the PWGSC Contracting Authority though electronic means or
    through written correspondence by the date indicated in the
    Min-RFP/RFP and within the parameters stated in the Mini-RFP/RFP.
    
    The PWGSC Contracting Authority will answer clarification
    requests to all bidders. As a result of clarification requests,
    the PWGSC Contracting Authority will determine if any revisions
    to SOW requirements or evaluation criteria is required, and if
    necessary, issue an amendment to the Mini-RFP/RFP. 
    
    6.	EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
    The proposal will be evaluated consistent with the evaluation
    factors identified in the Mini-RFP/RFP. 
    
    7.	CONTRACT AWARD
    
    Contracts awarded under the SAs will clearly specify the work to
    be performed for the full period of performance, including
    option years. The PWGSC Contracting Authority will award
    Contracts in accordance with Part 6 C - Resulting Contract
    Clauses of this SA, and incorporate the Statement of Work and
    the final proposal by reference. The Contract authorizes the SA
    Holder to proceed based upon the agreed technical requirements,
    milestone and deliverable schedule, including start and end
    dates for each milestone or deliverable. The SA Holder will not
    commence work until an approved Contract has been received from
    the PWGSC Contracting Authority, at the beginning of the period.
    The SA Holder acknowledges that any and all work performed in
    the absence of the aforementioned Contract will be done at the
    SA Holder's own risk, and Canada will not be liable for payment
    therefor, unless or until a Contract is provided by the PWGSC
    Contracting Authority.
    
    8.	DEBRIEFS
    At contract award, the PWGSC Contracting Authority will notify
    all bidders as to which SA Holder is being awarded the contract. 
    
    If a Bidder has questions as to why their proposal was not
    selected, the Bidder may direct written or verbal questions to
    the PWGSC Contracting Authority within ten (10) working days
    after contract award. The PWGSC Contracting Authority will
    debrief the Bidder in writing. 
    
    9.	CONTRACT AMENDMENTS
    The estimated total cost authorized for each Contract is not to
    be exceeded unless and until an increase is authorized by a
    formal Contract amendment and in accordance with the limits
    defined herein. No amendment of a Contract will be binding upon
    the Contractor or Canada unless a formal Contract amendment has
    been issued by the PWGSC Contracting Authority. Likewise, Canada
    will not be liable for any adjustment to the price of a Contract
    on account of a change, unless the change is authorized in
    writing by the PWGSC Contracting Authority.
    
    RFSA EVALUATION GRID
    
    	
     EVALUATION SUMMARY 	
     MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS:         q MET                        q 
     NOT MET	
    Mandatories Checked by:                                         
                          Date:	
     RATED REQUIREMENTS SCORE ACHIEVED	
     R.1      EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM AND QUALITY OF SAMPLES         
                PROVIDED	
     R.1.1) Demo samples demonstrate creative and technical
    excellence.	____/ 40 points
     R.1.2) The effective use of treatment, script, language and
    visual techniques to communicate the themes and messages.	____/
    40 points
     R.1.3) Demonstrates a wide variety of visual and dramatic
    devices, such as: graphic animation sequences;
    typography/on-screen text; motion graphics and animations; still
    imagery; imported (stock) film footage; off-camera and on-camera
    narration; music; sound and special effects.	____/ 10 points
     R.1.4) The audio-visual production outcomes.	____/ 10 points
    OVERALL TOTAL	____/ 100 points
    
    Overall Comments: 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    NOTE TO EVALUATORS: This evaluation grid contains the basic
    criteria. This grid must be used in conjunction with the RFSA
    document to ensure the evaluation is being conducted strictly in
    accordance with the published criteria. 
    
    
    
    1.1	TECHNICAL EVALUATION
    
    1.1.1	MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
    
    Evaluation Criteria	Met	Not met
    The bid submission requirements of Standard Instructions 2008
    are met.		
    The certifications in Part 5 have been completed and signed
    (either upon or following bid submission).		
    Comments:		
    		
    		
    		
    		
    
    
    
    
    
    Evaluation Criteria	Met	Not met
    M.1     IDENTIFICATION OF THE FIRM		
    The Supplier MUST identify the owners and management of the firm
    and the legal incorporated name as well as the organizational
    structure.  		
    Comments:		
    		
    		
    		
    		
    
    
    
    
    Evaluation Criteria	Met	Not met
    M.2     INTERNET SITE		
    Suppliers MUST have an Internet site that is accessible by
    Client Departments and Agencies. The purpose of this Internet
    site is to provide information on the services available and the
    Supplier's qualifications to provide those services. Therefore,
    in order to meet this mandatory requirement, the Supplier MUST
    have an Internet site and provide the active Internet address. 
    		
    Comments:		
    		
    		
    		
    		
    
    
    
    
    Evaluation Criteria	Met	Not met
    M.3     SUPPLIER'S CHOICE - REGIONS OF SERVICES		
    Suppliers MUST complete Appendix "1" - Supplier's Choice -
    Regions of Services in order to identify for which region(s)
    they are providing the required services.  		
    Comments:		
    		
    		
    		
    		
    
    
    
    
    
    Evaluation Criteria	Met	Not met
    M.4     EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM (The demo samples will be rated
    under R.1)		
    The Supplier MUST demonstrate their experience by submitting one
    (1) DVD or one (1) Blu-ray demo of at least four (4) samples
    produced and completed within the last five (5) years. The total
    running time of the samples MUST not exceed twenty (20) minutes
    in length. The productions MUST have been completed entirely by
    the Supplier in its original language under a separate contract
    with the public sector or provate industry.  One (1) of the
    samples MUST demonstrate the Suppliers ability to produce a
    video based audio-visual production for internal or external
    audiences for government (federal, provincial or municipal), for
    non-government organizations (NGA's) or be a corporate video. 
    One (1) of the samples MUST demonstrate the Supplier's ability
    to produce an audio-visual production that was tailored and
    posted to the Internet or adapted for Internet use.  One (1) of
    the samples MUST demonstrate the Suppliers ability to work in
    both official languages (English and French). Productions that
    have voice-overs, fully narrated or subtitled are not acceptable
    to demonstrate bilingual capability. For added details, a
    bilingual production is one in which there is both English and
    French equally and substantively represented in the same
    production. An adaptation is where after a production is
    produced in one language, it is then adapted into the other
    language taking into consideration the social and cultural
    differences of the target language population. An adaptation is
    not a straight translation.  		
    Comments:		
    		
    		
    		
    		
    
    
    OFFERS NOT MEETING ALL OF THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS WILL BE
    GIVEN NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
    
    1.1.2	RATED TECHNICAL CRITERIA
    
    Proposals will be evaluated and scored in accordance with
    specific evaluation criteria as detailed in this section. To be
    considered compliant, bidders must obtain the required minimum
    of 70 percent of the points for each rated criteria and an
    overall passing mark of 80 points on a scale of 100 points.
    Proposals scoring less will not be given further consideration.
    
    	NOTE: Percentage factors will be the basis used to allocate
    points for all rated requirements. The number of points will be
    calculated depending on the total value given for each
    criterion. For example, if we give 0.7 as a score for R.1.1 (40
    points X 0.7 = 28 points), this is equal to 70% of the total
    value given for that criterion. We cannot deviate from the
    established scoring grid. For example, we could not give a score
    of 0.75 (75%). We would have to choose between a 0.7 or a 0.8
    (70% or 80%).
    
    
    	
    INSTRUCTIONS TO EVALUATORS
    
    
    PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY PRIOR TO
    COMMENCING THE EVALUATION OF THE RATED REQUIREMENTS.
    
    
    1.	The following scoring grid will be used for the evaluation of
    the rated criteria.
    
    2.	ONLY the Percentage Factors indicated in the table are to be
    entered into the evaluation grids that follow.  In other words,
    evaluators MUST choose from ONLY the following available
    Percentage Factors: 1, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.5, and 0.  Factors such
    as 0.65, 0.85, etc. MUST NOT be used.
    	
    3.	The "Points" and "Total Points" boxes in the grids will be
    calculated based on the Percentage Factor(s) assigned. 
    Evaluators MUST NOT select a number for "Points" which does not
    correspond to a Percentage Factor.  For example, 3/10 is not an
    acceptable score as 0.3 is not an available 
    
    R.1	EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM AND QUALITY OF SAMPLES PROVIDED
    	(Maximum: 100 points - Minimum: 70 points)
    	
    	The video demo will be evaluated on the following rated
    criteria:
    	
    R.1.1	Demo samples demonstrate creative and technical excellence
    (40 points).
    	
    	At a minimum, we are looking for the following criteria: your
    approach (is it attractive, creative, innovative or
    appropriate); the quality of images; quality and effectiveness
    of cinematography, the use of special effects and graphics; use
    of camera angles; lighting; editing; and effective use of music
    and sound. 
    
     Demo Samples - Up to a maximum of 40 points			
    Assessment of Criteria Sample(s) Percentage Factor  Points 			
     Criterion for an established minimum acceptable response
    (Percentage factor of 0.7):			/ 40
     Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the demo
    samples:  Not acceptable (0): The information provided was
    unsuitable or insufficient. Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed,
    but not enough information provided and/or technically not
    acceptable. Less than established minimum. Acceptable (0.7):
    This is the established minimum.  All of the above mentionned
    criteria are acceptable. Meets the minimum for technical
    standards. Demo demonstrates some creativity and innovation. 
    Good (0.8 ):  Slightly exceeds the established minimum, with one
    or two criteria that are very good. Approach demonstrates
    creativity and innovation.  Very Good (0.9): The majority of the
    criteria are very good. One or two criteria may be excellent.
    Approach demonstrates very good creativity and innovation
    without being outstanding. Outstanding (1): Very unique, bold,
    and creative approach. Has excellent quality and use of images.
    Outstanding cinematography. Demo demonstrates excellent use of
    special effects and graphics and lighting. Has very appropriate
    use of music and sound. 			
    Comments:   Total Points / 40			
    
     
    
    R.1.2	The effective use of treatment, script, language and
    visual techniques to communicate the themes and messages. (40
    points)
    	
    	At a minimum, we are looking for the following criteria:
    engaging and complete storyline, clear script, proprer use of
    language, quality of translation, effective communication of
    content and messages both in narration and on-camera, including
    the use of other techniques to get the message across.
    
     Treatment, script, language and visual techniques - Up to a
    maximum of 40 points			
    Assessment of Criteria Sample(s) Percentage Factor  Points 			
     Criterion for an established minimum acceptable response
    (Percentage factor of 0.7):			/ 40
     Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the visual
    and dramatic devices:  Not acceptable (0): The information
    provided was unsuitable or insufficient. Limited (0.5):
    Criterion addressed, but not enough information provided and/or
    technically not acceptable. Less than established minimum.
    Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. All of the
    above mentionned criteria are acceptable, and meets the
    established minimum. The treatment, script, language and
    technique adequately help convey themes and messages.  Good
    (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum, with one or two
    criteria that are very good. Treatment, script, language and
    technique help convey the themes and messages.  Very Good (0.9):
    The majority of the criteria are very good. One or two criteria
    may be excellent. Treatment, script, language and techniques
    effectively communicate themes and messages without being
    outstanding. Outstanding (1): Outstanding delivery of content
    and messages. Treatment, script, language and techniques are
    communicated very well, both in narration and on-camera.
    Appropriate techniques are used.			
    Comments:   Total Points / 40			
    
    
    
    
    	R.1.3	Demonstrate a wide variety of visual and dramatic
    devices, such as: graphic animation sequences;
    typography/on-screen text; motion graphics and animations; still
    imagery; imported (stock) film footage; off-camera and on-camera
    narration; music; sound and special effects (10 points).
    	
    	At a minimum, we are looking for the use of six (6) of the ten
    (10) above-mentioned visual or dramatic devices.
    
     Visual and dramatic devices  - Up to a maximum of 10 points			
    Assessment of Criteria Sample(s) Percentage Factor  Points 			
     Criterion for an established minimum acceptable response
    (Percentage factor of 0.7):			/ 10
     Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the visual
    and dramatic devices:  Not acceptable (0): The information
    provided was unsuitable or insufficient. Limited (0.5):
    Criterion addressed, but not enough information provided and/or
    technically not acceptable. Less than established minimum.
    Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. At least six
    (6) of the listed devices are effectively used, and the demo
    meets the established minimum.  Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the
    established minimum, with two (2) or three (3) of the devices
    that are very good.  Very Good (0.9):  The majority of the
    criteria are very good. Four (4) or five (5) criteria may be
    excellent, without being outstanding.   Outstanding (1): A very
    effective blend of six or more visual or dramatic devices and
    are relevant to the subject matter. The quality and
    effectiveness of at least six (6) devices are outstanding. 			
    Comments:   Total Points / 10			
    
    
    
    
    R.1.4 	The audio-visual production outcomes. (10 points) 
    
    	At a minimum, the Supplier should describe the success of the
    projects. What was the feedback from the audience, if any? We
    are aware that many Suppliers are not in control of evaluating
    the projects success/use, nor always able to monitor audience
    feedback, however a written and signed client testimonial on how
    the video's were used and received would suffice.
    	
    	
     Audio-Visual Production Outcomes - Up to a maximum of 10
    points			
    Assessment of Criteria Sample(s) Percentage Factor  Points 			
     Criterion for an established minimum acceptable response
    (Percentage factor of 0.7):			/ 10
     Percentage factors utilized for the evaluation of the outcome
    of the videos:  Not acceptable (0): The information provided was
    unsuitable or insufficient. Limited (0.5): Criterion addressed,
    but not enough information provided and/or technically not
    acceptable. Less than established minimum. Acceptable (0.7):
    This is the established minimum.  The supplier communicated in
    an approriate manner the outcome of the projects.   Good (0.8):
    The supplier communicated its subject matter in a manner that is
    rather effective and appropriate of the outcome of the projects.
     Very Good (0.9):  The supplier communicated its subject matter
    that is very effective and appropriate of the outcome of the
    projects. Very good details were provided. The client
    testimonial confirmed the high level of audience acceptace.
    Outstanding (1): The supplier communicated its subject matter
    that is excellent and appropriate of the outcome of the
    projects. Outstanding details were provided. The client
    testimonial confirmed the high level of audience acceptace. 			
    Comments:   Total Points / 10			
    
    
    
    Total points allocated for the Rated Criteria R.1:  ________  /
    100 points
    
    
    
    
    SUMMARY OF POINTS AWARDED TO THE SUPPLIER			
    Rated Criteria  Maximum Points  Minimum Points Points Awarded to
     Bidders			
    R.1 EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM AND QUALITY OF SAMPLES PROVIDED			 
     R.1.1 Demo samples demonstrate creative and technical
    excellence	 40	 28	 
     R.1.2 The effectiveness use of treatment, script, language and
    visual techniques to communicate the themes and messages	 40 	
    28	 
     R.1.3 Demonstrate a wide variety of visual and dramatic
    devices, such as: graphic animation sequences;
    typography/on-screen text; motion graphics and animations; still
    imagery; imported (stock) film footage; off-camera and on-camera
    narration; music; sound and special effects	   10 	   7	 
     R.1.4 The audio-visual production outcomes	 10 	 7	 
     OVERALL TOTAL	 100	 70	 000 
    
    
    
    APPENDIX "2"
    VIDEO DEMO - "PROPOSED PROJECT FACT SHEET"
    
    In order to ensure that the evaluation team gets the information
    needed to evaluate the demo, please ensure that the following
    information is provided on a "per project" basis.   
    
    
     Client: 	 Company, department or agency name. 
     Client Contact:  	 Name and contact information for
    company/department/agency representative that managed the
    project.  
     Description and purpose of production:	 Brief description of
    the production. What was the communications or training
    challenge?  What was the primary goal?
     Target Audience(s):  	 Who was or were the target audience(s)?  
     Creative Approach:  	 What creative devices were used?  How did
    these contribute to meeting the stated goal?  
     Production Dates	 When did the project start (contract
    signing); and when did it end (launch/first use of video)? 
     Production Budget:	 What was the total production cost?  (If
    the program was produced in both English and French, please
    provide the total cost of both programs).  
     Project Outcomes	 Was the program successfully received by the
    target audience(s)?  Did it achieve its goal?  
    
    
    
    
    Delivery Date: Above-mentioned
    
    The Crown retains the right to negotiate with suppliers on any
    procurement.
    
    Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada.

    Contract duration

    Refer to the description above for full details.

    Trade agreements

    • Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)

    Partner with another business

    The functionality to add your company name to the list of interested businesses is temporarily unavailable.

    This list does not replace or affect the tendering procedures for this procurement process. Businesses are still required to respond to bid solicitations, and to compete based on the set criteria. For more information please read the Terms of use.

    Contact information

    Contracting organization

    Organization
    Public Works and Government Services Canada
    Address
    11 Laurier St, Phase III, Place du Portage
    Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0S5
    Canada
    Contracting authority
    Pelot, Robert
    Phone
    (613) 990-6842 ( )
    Address
    360 Albert St. / 360, rue Albert
    12th Floor / 12ième étage
    Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0S5

    Buying organization(s)

    Organization
    Public Works and Government Services Canada
    Address
    11 Laurier St, Phase III, Place du Portage
    Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0S5
    Canada
    Bidding details

    Details for this tender opportunity are provided in the Description tab.

    Please contact the contracting officer to get the full solicitation documentation, access information on how to bid, or if you have any questions regarding this tender opportunity.

    Note that there may be fees to access the documents or bid. These should be outlined in the Description tab.

    We recommend that you contact the contracting officer as soon as possible, as there may be deadlines for receiving questions.

    Eligibility and terms and conditions

    Government of Canada tender and awards notices, solicitation documents, and other attachments are fully accessible and available free of charge and without having to register on CanadaBuys.

    Information may be available on another source prior to being available on CanadaBuys. You may have received this information through a third-party distributor. The Government of Canada is not responsible for any tender notices and/or related documents and attachments not accessed directly from CanadaBuys.canada.ca.

    Government of Canada tender or award notices carry an OpenGovernment License - Canada that governs its use. Related solicitation documents and/or tender attachments are copyright protected. Please refer to our terms and conditions page for more information.

    Summary information

    Notice type
    Request for Information
    Language(s)
    English, French
    Region(s) of delivery
    Alberta
    ,
    British Columbia
    ,
    Manitoba
    ,
    New Brunswick
    ,
    Newfoundland and Labrador
    ,
    Nova Scotia
    ,
    Ontario (except NCR)
    ,
    Prince Edward Island
    ,
    Quebec (except NCR)
    ,
    Saskatchewan
    ,
    National Capital Region (NCR)
    Selection criteria
    Highest Combined Rating of Technical Merit and Price
    Commodity - GSIN
    Click the links below to see a list of notices associated with the GSIN codes.

    Support for small and medium businesses

    If you have questions about this tender opportunity, please contact the contracting officer, whose information is found in the Contact information tab. 

    Refer to our Support page if you need help or have questions about the government procurement process, including how to bid or how to register in SAP Ariba. You can also contact Procurement Assistance Canada, which has offices across Canada.

     

    Date modified: