Assesement criteria second round

Assesement criteria second round

The second round will have a new tender submission period during which a maximum of five tenderers, whose proposals were assessed as being the best by the jury in round one, will be invited to further elaborate on and justify their vision and look ahead and to also organise a presentation to the jury. The proposal submitted and assessed in round one will form the basis for elaboration in round two.

The jury’s official support team will assess whether the tender (submitted in line with the required format and instructions) satisfies the minimum quality of professionalism in round two. This means the official support team – on behalf of the jury – will assess whether a fully-fledged, concrete, detailed and executable project plan has been submitted, which effectively fits in with the competition’s objective and has been supplied with a justified execution budget. If the official support team, on behalf of the jury, reaches a justified decision that this is not the case and assesses the project plan to be insufficient, it will be disregarded and won’t be further assessed.

The jury will use the following criteria to arrive at an assessment in round two:

1 Vision and innovation
2 Collaboration
3 Implementation and feasibility
4 Impact 

The jury will pay specific attention to the following aspects where these criteria are concerned: 

1. Vision and innovation 
To what extent has the tenderer acquired an insight into the developments in relation to increasing the value of the city’s waste flows as raw materials for new products and the way in which his project plan provides a positive contribution to the Waste-Free City ambition.

To what extent has the project plan established new and original relationships between different urban waste flows, or parts of the chain, in order to arrive at new products? Has something new been added to Almere after the three year period, or has something existing been substantially scaled up?

2. Collaboration 
The added value generated by the proposed collaboration between different elements of the existing infrastructure and the ecosystem within the field of Almere and the MRA’s circular economy.

To what extent has the existing infrastructure and the ecosystem in Almere and the MRA been made use of? Is added value generated as a result of the collaboration when combining the different disciplines? 

The quality and expertise in relation to the key people’s circular economy, who will be used by the tenderer for the benefit of the tender implementation. 

Are the knowledge, skills and experience of the people who are going to be implementing the tender sufficient? Are the required qualities available within the team which is going to be carrying out the activities? 

Has the tenderer built up a team which can successfully realise the results? How will the right people remain involved with the activities? 

Have the right collaboration partners been involved with the plan and are they sufficiently committed? Can the collaborating parties possibly also convince others to participate, in order to realise the required results? Can the tenderer also guarantee the results in the long-term with the proposed team/collaboration partners?

3. Implementation and feasibility 
Clarity of the detailed vision description in relation to the tender submission in round one, including the detailed elaboration (implementation). Whilst preserving the principles and values presented in round one.

How has the vision been worked out in the right level of detail? Is there clarity regarding what the parties are going to do in order to realise the result? 

Feasibility of the development strategy, with milestones and result obligations (as SMART as possible). Are the tender objectives clear? Is it clear what is going to happen when, in order for the set objectives to be realised? Have the milestones been clearly defined? Have the risks been identified? 

Is the planning realistic, ensuring this assignment’s objectives and milestones can be realised on time? 

Is there a realistic budget? What is the tenderers’ level of financial commitment for this assignment in relation to the requested cofinancing from the Almere Urbanisation Fund? Can the tenderer realise a sufficient income? Has the municipal budget cycle been sufficiently aligned with, i.e. have definitive decisions been reached regarding AUF funding for 2018 and 2019?

How well thought through and justified is the implementation budget and how does the tenderer plan to create income once the cofinancing has ended and how feasible and probable is this? In short: how convincing is it that the project will also be able to continue independently as an economically independent activity after the cofinancing from the Almere Urbanisation Fund has ended.

4. Impact
The impact the plan will have on the circular economy and employment, in particular in relation to paid work for low-skilled workers, people who have been distanced from the employment in Almere and the MRA’s competitive position in this area.

To what extent will the tender improve employment conditions in Almere? To what extent will economic growth – also in the long-term – be stimulated? Will the realisation of the tender result in any new economic activities?