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: create a small carbon footprint; use whenever possible "green" utility power; use renewable, recyclebable and/or reusable materials for sets; use hybrid vehicules and/or alternative fuels for travel; encourage green accomodations; use of paperless scripts; use of digital filming; use of materials that are energy efficient and are recyclable, reusable and are easily upgradable; 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: Carbon assessments for production companies; ENERGY STAR qualified (or equivalent) audio-visual equipment where applicable; and 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)
Contact information
Contracting organization
- Organization
-
Public Works and Government Services Canada
- Address
-
11 Laurier St, Phase III, Place du PortageGatineau, Quebec, K1A 0S5Canada
- Contracting authority
- Pelot, Robert
- Phone
- (613) 990-6842 ( )
- Address
-
360 Albert St. / 360, rue Albert
12th Floor / 12ième étageOttawa, Ontario, K1A 0S5
Buying organization(s)
- Organization
-
Public Works and Government Services Canada
- Address
-
11 Laurier St, Phase III, Place du PortageGatineau, Quebec, K1A 0S5Canada
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.