1. (a) Each proposal will be read, evaluated, and rated solely on its individual merit by a team of three raters based upon the applicant's proposed efficiency and effectiveness in providing the services and activities set forth in Penal Code Section 13825.4(a) and these regulations.
2. (b) A pool of qualified raters will be selected from DOJ staff, as well as from staff from other agencies, who have experience working with youth programs.

3. (c) Each rater will individually:

   1. (1) Assign a numerical score to the narrative sections of the proposal, as set forth in Section 439(c)(4)(A-G) of these regulations as follows:

      1. (A) The applicant qualifications section has one question with a total point value of 40 possible points.
      2. (B) The applicant's description of the problem and documentation of need has five questions with a total point value of 40 possible points.
      3. (C) The applicant's at-risk target population has six questions with a total point value of 80 possible points.
      4. (D) The applicant's project description has five questions with a total point value of 100 possible points.
      5. (E) The applicant's project implementation plan has six questions with a total point value of 60 possible points.
      6. (F) The applicant's project evaluation plan has four questions with a total point value of 60 possible points.
      7. (G) The applicant's budget narrative has three questions with a total point value of 40 possible points.

   2. (2) Rate each section of the proposal using a numerical scale which sets forth the maximum and minimum points. The point value varies with the importance of the question and the rater responds using the following five categories:

      1. (A) Does not respond to the question.
      2. (B) The information presented does not provide a good response to the information requested in the specified section of the RFP. The response does not present an argument supporting the applicant's proposal.
      3. (C) The information presented provides an adequate response to the information requested in the specified section of the RFP. The response presents a persuasive argument supporting the applicant's proposal.
      4. (D) The information presented provides a more than adequate response to the information requested in the specified section of the RFP and gives a clear and detailed response to the information requested. The response presents a very persuasive argument supporting the applicant's proposal.
      5. (E) The information presented provides an outstanding response to the information requested in the specified section of the RFP, gives a clear and detailed response, and provides highly relevant information exceeding the information requested. The response presents a highly persuasive and compelling argument supporting the applicant's proposal.
4. (d) The separate scores of each rater of the team will be averaged to obtain a single score for the proposal.
5. (e) The averaged scores of all proposals will be ranked in order from highest to lowest to establish a proposed funding list for the GCVPP Program.
6. (f) If proposals are tied and it is necessary to break the tie, the tie will be broken by the re-rating of the proposals by another team of independent raters that have not previously participated in rating the tied proposals.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 13825.3(c) and 13825.5, Penal Code. Reference: Sections 13825.3 and 13825.5, Penal Code.

History

1. New section filed 5-6-2002 as an emergency; operative 5-6-2002 (Register 2002, No. 19). A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL by 9-3-2002 or emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on the following day.

2. Certificate of Compliance as to 5-6-2002 order, including amendment of section, transmitted to OAL by 8-30-2002 and filed 10-10-2002 (Register 2002, No. 41).