Maintenance on CanadaBuys website

The CanadaBuys website will be down for scheduled maintenance at the times listed below. We apologize for any inconvenience.  

  • Friday, May 24, 7:00 pm until 11:00 pm (Eastern Time) 

  • Sunday, May 26, 7:45pm until 9:45 pm (Eastern Time) 

Audio Visual Production - RFIC # 2

Solicitation number EN578-150098/B

Publication date

Closing date and time 2014/08/07 14:00 EDT


    Description
    Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
    Tendering Procedures: All interested suppliers may submit a bid
    Attachment: None
    Competitive Procurement Strategy: Best Overall  Proposal
    Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
    Nature of Requirements: 
    REQUEST FOR INDUSTRY COMMENTS (RFIC) # 2
    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 August 7, 2014
    
    
    INTRODUCTION
    
    This second RFIC is a result of the first industry day. This
    RFIC is to seek industry input on the proposed RFSA evaluation
    and selection criteria and the subsequent selection and
    evaluation criteria for the Supply Arrangement Request for
    Proposals (SARFP).
    
    The purpose of the second Information Session is to finalize the
    evaluation criteria. The second Information Session is intended
    to be an open forum allowing PWGSC to communicate with
    interested suppliers and seek their input on the the proposed
    evaluation criteria. 
    
    Suppliers interested in participating in the second 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 August 14, 2014 at
    10:00AM.
    
    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 roughly based on 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:
    
    Is the evaluation criteria for the Supply Arrangement
    specifically appropriate for this commodity?
    Is the evaluation criteria for the subsequent RFPs under the
    Supply Arrangement (SARFPs) specifically appropriate for this
    commodity?
    Do you have any specific suggestions regarding the evaluation
    criteria and selection methodology for the RFSA and subsequent
    RFPs?
    
    9.		REQUEST FOR SUPPLY ARRANGEMENTS:
    
    	Please see the following evaluation criteria for reference.
    
    
    Audio Visual Production Services
    Request For Supply Arrangements (RFSA)
    
    Proposed Evaluation Criteria - Supply Arrangement
    
    
    EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF SELECTION 
    
    1.	EVALUATION PROCEDURES
    Offers will be assessed in accordance with the entire
    requirement of the Request for Supply Arrangement including all
    of the criteria stipulated herein.
    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	EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM (The demo samples will be rated
    under R.1)
    The Supplier MUST demonstrate their experience by submitting one
    (1) USB key 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.3. 
    
    	The USB demo should be able to be played on any laptop computer.
    
    	The demo should be menu driven.
    
    	To better understand the samples submitted for the mandatory
    criteria M3., 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
    
    To be declared responsive, a supplier must:
    
    comply with all the requirements of the Request for Supply
    Arrangement (RFSA); and
    meet all mandatory technical evaluation criteria; and
    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.
    
    Suppliers not meeting (a) or (b) or (c) above will be declared
    non-responsive.  
    
    All 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 only under the Set-Aside Program for
    Aboriginal Business. 
    
    There is no limit to the number of Supply Arrangement's to be
    put in place.
    
    
    DETAILED EVALUATION PROCESS FOR REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
    ISSUED UNDER THE SUPPLY ARRANGEMENT (SARFP)
    
    
    1.	EVALUATION CRITERIA
    The evaluation criteria will be delineated in the request for
    proposal the Supply Arrangement Request for Proposals (SARFP). 
    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.
    
    1.1	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 SARFP 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". 
     
     1.2	Point Rated Evaluation Criteria 
    The SARFP 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.
     
     2.	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. 
    
     3.	BASIS OF PAYMENT
     A Firm Price contract will be used.  Multiple invoice payments
    will be permitted.
    
    4.	STEPS IN THE RFP PROCESS FOR ALL COMPETED REQUIREMENTS
    The SARFP 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 SARFP will be
    sent electronically to SA Holders via e-mail. 
     
     An SARFP Under the Supply Arrangements is used for requirements
    valued at more than $25,000 but less than $400,000 excluding
    applicable taxes. Supply Arrangement Holders will be invited to
    submit a proposal for this solicitation process based on the
    following selection process:
    
    
    
    
    Two Suppliers picked on a rotational basis; and
    Two Supply Arrangement holders as recommended by the Client; and
    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:  The Suppliers will be given 48 hours from the time they
    are invited to bid to confirm their intention to bid. If a
    supplier intends not to bid on a particular invitation, they
    must advise the contracting officer who will remove them from
    that invitation and pick an other supplyer using the random
    selection criteria identified above. This will only be done once
    to avoid having to extend the bid closing date.
    
    As a result and as much as possible, all SARFPs will have at
    least five bidders to maintain fair competition.
    	
    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 SARFP, 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 SARFP 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 SARFP and within the
    parameters stated in the SARFP.
     
    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. 
    
    5.	EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
    The proposals will be evaluated consistent with the evaluation
    factors identified in the SARFP. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SAMPLE SARFP EVALUATION CRITERIA
    
    MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
    
    M.1     FINANCIAL PROPOSAL
    The Bidder MUST submit a financial proposal with a firm price
    not exceeding $XXXXX (Goods and Services Tax or Harmonized Sales
    Tax extra, as appropriate). The maximum amount includes travel
    expenses.		
    
    The Bidder must submit a detailed pricing proposal (indicating
    units e.g. days, weeks, hours, dollar rates, etc.) that
    correlates with the production schedule and resource allocation
    of the project. The Bidder must also provide sufficient budget
    details in terms of categories, line items, unit prices/rates,
    level of effort, with consistent budget structures and breakdown
    for each production phase.
    
    The Bidder must treat any travel expenses as a separate item.
    Note that the Bidder's fee should include the travel expenses
    associated with attending mandatory meetings. Travel costs
    should be calculated according to Treasury Board Travel Rates
    and Policies which can be found at the following weblink:
    http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TBM_113/c-eng.asp
    
    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 96 points. The rating is performed on a
    scale of 120 points. Proposals scoring less than 70 percent in
    one of these criterion 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 (35
    points X 0.7 = 24.5 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%).
    
    CREATIVE APPROACH AND TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY (MAXIMUM : 70 POINTS)
    	
    	R.1 will be evaluated on the following rated criteria:
    
    R.1.1:	Understanding of the scope and challenges of project and
    degree to which these are addressed.  (Maximum 35 points -
    Minimum 24.5 points)
    
    	At a minimum, we are looking for: details and examples of how
    you demonstrate your understanding of the project's scope and
    challenges; how your understanding of the scope and the
    challenges are reflected in the approach.
    
    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 and/or the proposal
    did not demonstrate an understanding of the scope and/or most of
    the information was transcribed from the Statement of Work (SOW)
    without providing additional information. Less than established
    minimum.
    Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. Acceptable
    understanding of the project's scope and challenges. The
    approach outlines challenges of project. Methodology addresses
    the objectives.
    Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum. Good
    understanding of the project's scope and challenges. The
    approach provides a good outline of challenges with some
    solutions.  Methodology stands a good chance of achieving the
    objectives.
    Very Good (0.9): Very good understanding of the project's scope
    and challenges. The approach is good and provides analysis of
    challenges with solutions. Approach and methodology stands a
    very good chance of achieving the objectives.
    Outstanding (1): Outstanding understanding of the project's
    scope and challenges. The approach is outstanding and provides
    excellent analysis of challenges with well thought out
    solutions. Approach and methodology will effectively achieve the
    objectives.
    
    R.1.2: The outline of the proposed production treatment is easy
    to visualize.  (Maximum 35 points - Minimum 24.5 points)  
    
    	At a minimum, we are looking for: clear visualization of both
    the structure and the creative approach of the production
    treatment.
    
    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 and/or the story idea
    is average and/or not appropriate and/or it is unlikely to
    achieve the goal(s) of the project. Less than established
    minimum.
    Acceptable (0.7): This is the established minimum. It is easy to
    visualize the structure of the story and the creative approach
    of the production treatment. The overall structure is fine
    without being perfect. The story idea is average. 
    Good (0.8): Slightly exceeds the established minimum. It is easy
    to visualize the structure of the story and the creative
    approach of the treatment. The story idea is good. Content is
    accurate or mostly accurate.
    Very Good (0.9): It is very easy to visualize the story and the
    creative approach of the production treatment. The overall
    structure holds very well from the beginning to the end. The
    story idea is strong. Content is accurate or mostly accurate.
    The look-and-feel of this production is obvious. A good script
    may also be provided. 
    Outstanding (1): Visualization of the video is crystal clear
    throughout and the creative approach of the production
    treatment. The overall structure holds very well from the
    beginning to the end. The story idea is very strong. Content is
    accurate. Other means are used to help visualize the
    content/look-and-feel of the video such as mock-ups and/or
    illustrated storyboards. A strong script may also be provided.
    
    	PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
    	(MAXIMUM : 30 POINTS)
    
    	R.2 will be evaluated on the following rated criteria:
    
    	
    	The Bidder should propose a preliminary project management
    approach that provides flexibility and considers client needs as
    described in this RFP. 
    
    It should reflect how the Bidder proposes to work in
    collaboration with the Project Manager and Project Team on the
    development of the treatment and production and outline the key
    areas that require input from the Client. It should illustrate
    how the Bidder will ensure that performance, quality, scheduled
    goals are achieved, and illustrate a detailed work plan and
    schedule that identifies the significant milestones and
    deliverables within the development process.  
    	
    	The following criteria will be evaluated:
    
    R.2.1	Project Management Approach (Maximum 30 points - Minimum
    21 points)
    	Provide a detailed description of the proposed project
    management approach and procedures, schedule controls, risk
    mitigation, as well as the tools and techniques that will be
    used to plan, organize, direct and control the Project including
    the milestones and deliverables. The project management approach
    should also outline how the Bidder proposes to work in
    collaboration with the Project Authority to insure sufficient
    time for review and Government approval process.
    
    Explain why your project plan will ensure smooth delivery of
    your proposed approach and methodology.
    	At a minimum, we are looking for: Project management approach
    that provides sufficient details on process, processes for
    working with the Project Authority, schedule controls, timelines
    suitable and realistic; risk mitigation, planning tools and
    techniques that will be put in place and used to plan, organize,
    direct and control the project
    
    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. Details on
    process; schedule controls; planning tools techniques are
    minimal. Good techniques to be put in place and used to plan,
    organize, direct and control the project. Correctly identifies
    risk areas and provided some mitigation strategies. Timelines
    are mostly realistic, and include client involvement in plan and
    approach. 
    Good (0.8): Project management approach has sufficient details
    on process; schedule controls; planning tools and techniques.
    Good techniques to be put in place and used to plan, organize,
    direct and control the project. Correctly identifies risk areas
    and provides good mitigation strategies. Timelines are
    realistic, and include client involvement in plan and approach.
    Approach for working with Project Authority is good.
    Very Good (0.9): Project management approach has complete
    details on process; schedule controls; planning tools and
    techniques. Very efficient techniques to be put in place and
    used to plan, organize, direct and control the project.
    Correctly identifies risk areas and provides very good
    mitigation strategies. Timelines are suitable and realistic, and
    include good level of client involvement in plan and approach.
    Approach for working with Project Authority is very good.
    Outstanding (1): Project management approach has the most
    complete details on process; schedule controls; and planning
    tools and techniques. Very efficient and innovative techniques
    to be put in place and used to plan, organize, direct and
    control the project. Correctly identifies risk areas and
    provides clear and valid mitigation strategies. Timelines are
    suitable and very realistic while offering flexibility and
    include excellent client involvement in plan and approach.
    Approach for working with the Project Authority is flexible.
    
    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)
    Procurement method
    Competitive – Open Bidding
    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: