CTEA RFP Evaluation Standards Matrix

*NOTE: Please see "Components of Each Standard" below for explanation of standards

Standard maximum possible points = 21; Scale is 0 - 3 points for each standard

Plus Additional Partnership Bonus points 0 - 3

TOTAL MAXIMUM POSSIBLE POINTS = 24)

Project & Department

Planning Factor and Points per factor

3 Points

Exceeds factor requirement

2 Points

Meets factor requirement

1 Point

Does  not adequately address factor requirement

0 Points

Factor missing from proposal

Perkins IV - Priorities

 

 

 

 

SRJC PRPP

--In PRPP & Ranking

 

 

 

 

Advisory Committee

--Recommendations

 

 

 

 

SRJC Initiatives

 

 

 

 

Planning Team

 

 

 

 

Accountability, Evaluation and Assessment Standards

 

 

 

 

Regional Initiatives, Programs, and Data

 

 

 

 

Standard Total = 21 points possible

 

 

 

 

Partnership Bonus        
TOTAL (24 Possible)        

 

 

 

*Components of Each Standard:

 

 

Point Value 3 Points 2 Points 1 Point 0 Points

 

Perkins IV – Priorities

1.       Strengthen academic & technical skills of students

2.       Link secondary and post-secondary

3.       Focus on all aspects of industry

4.       Increase use of technology

5.       Faculty professional development

6.       Evaluation

7.       Modernize programs

8.       Sufficient scope and size

9.       Meet needs of special populations

Addresses 7 – 9 priorities

Addresses 4 – 6 priorities

Addresses 1 - 3 priorities

Addresses no priorities

SRJC PRPP

1.        Listed and explained in PRPP

2.       Cluster ranking

Included in PRPP and 1st or 2nd in cluster priority

Included in PRPP and 3rd in cluster priority

Included in PRPP but not in cluster top 3 priorities

Not in PRPP

Program Advisory Committees

Committee places highest priority on this project; department maintains current committtee list and is responsive to requests for information. Committee met twice in fiscal year.

Committee recommends this project among others ; department maintains current committtee list but is not responsive to requests for information. Committee met twice in fiscal year

Committee recommendation not strong ; department does not maintain current committtee list and is not responsive to requests for information. Committee met one time in fiscal year

Not mentioned by Committee . No or poor use of advisory committee. No meetings

SRJC Initiatives

Supports three or more initiatives

Supports two initiatives

Supports one initiative

Does not support an initiative

SRJC Local Planning Team

Planning Team – highest priority

Planning Team – medium to high priority

Planning Team – low priority

Not addressed by Planning Team

Accountability, Evaluation and Assessment of Standards

1.       Technical skill attainment

2.       Completions

3.       Persistence & Transfer

4.       Placement

5.       Non-traditional employment

Addresses 4 – 5 Accountability standards

Addresses 2 – 3 Accountability standards

Addresses one Accountability standard

Does not address Accountability standards

Regional Initiatives, Economic and Employment Data

Careful analysis of many sources of data, economic reports, job market information,  and trends in the regional economy. Includes SRJC Fact Book data (e.g. number of certificates or degrees awarded)

Good survey of job market, changing economy, place of project in the regional economy. No SRJC Fact Book data.

Minimum information about trends and economic conditions

Does not address outside world

Partnership Bonus
Partner may be internal or external (e.g. another SRJC department; business; industry group; non-profit organization; government agency; etc.)

 

 Includes 3 or more partners Includes 2 partners Includes 1 partner Does not include partners