Services de Production Audio Visuels

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:
r••••••••@••••••••.••.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:

r••••••••@••••••••.••.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.