Community Arts Resources (CARS)
CRITERIA PANEL
SCORE
MAXIMUM
POINTS
Value Add/Breadth of Service 17.33 20
Project Team 14 15
References 4.67 5
Experience 17.67 20
Demonstration of Understanding of the Project and
Goals 18.33 20
Cost 17 20
TOTAL POINTS 89 100
Panelist Comments
• Value Add/Breadth of Service:
CARS demonstrated a comprehensive approach, offering industry best practices and extensive experience in public arts programming. Their communication skills and community engagement strategies stood out.
• Project Team:
The project team was well-rounded, with clear expertise and experience relevant to the Santa Monica Airport Arts Studios. Their understanding of project goals and effective communication were praised.
• References:
Strong references confirmed their successful track record managing similar projects. • Experience:
Extensive experience with arts programming, festivals, and community engagement.
The proposal demonstrated financial stability and proven success with public entities. • Demonstration of Understanding of the Project and Goals:
CARS’ proposal showed a deep understanding of the project scope, goals, and community needs. Their plan was detailed and innovative. • Cost:
The cost proposal was balanced, focusing on programming over overhead, with sustainable funding strategies.
Bridge Street
CRITERIA PANEL
SCORE
MAXIMUM
POINTS
Value Add/Breadth of Service 13.3 20
Project Team 9 15
References 3.67 5
Experience 13 20
Demonstration of Understanding of the Project and
Goals 11.67 20
Cost 12 20
TOTAL POINTS 62.7 100
Panelist Comments
• Value Add/Breadth of Service:
Bridge Street showed strength in event production but lacked a clear focus on community-based arts programming.
• Project Team:
The team demonstrated expertise in event management but lacked comprehensive experience in ongoing arts programming.
• References:
Provided strong references, though their relevance to sustained programming was limited.
• Experience:
Event production experience was solid, but ongoing project management experience was lacking.
• Demonstration of Understanding of the Project and Goals:
The proposal emphasized marketing and high-profile events rather than artist development and community building.
• Cost:
A large portion of the budget was allocated to marketing, with less emphasis on artist support.
Carl Berg
CRITERIA PANEL
SCORE
MAXIMUM
POINTS
Value Add/Breadth of Service 7.33 20
Project Team 5.67 15
References 2 5
Experience 6.67 20
Demonstration of Understanding of the Project and
Goals 7 20
Cost 4.67 20
TOTAL POINTS 33.3 100
Panelist Comments
• Value Add/Breadth of Service:
The proposal focused primarily on curation, with limited insight into broader programming needs.
• Project Team:
The team lacked depth and comprehensive management experience. • References:
References were incomplete and did not fully support the proposal. • Experience:
Limited experience beyond curation; lacked evidence of managing complex, ongoing projects.
• Demonstration of Understanding of the Project and Goals:
The proposal did not clearly articulate a plan for project implementation. • Cost:
The budget was unclear and heavily weighted toward salaries over programming.
Maxima Art Initiative
CRITERIA PANEL
SCORE
MAXIMUM
POINTS
Value Add/Breadth of Service 13 20
Project Team 9.33 15
References 3.67 5
Experience 18.33 20
Demonstration of Understanding of the Project and
Goals 13.67 20
Cost 13 20
TOTAL POINTS 71 100
Panelist Comments
• Value Add/Breadth of Service:
Innovative ideas were presented, but the proposal lacked clear pathways for execution. • Project Team:
The team was overly reliant on one individual, limiting overall capacity. • References:
References were positive but raised concerns about follow-through and financial stability .
• Experience:
Strong historical achievements, but the focus on past work overshadowed future plans. • Demonstration of Understanding of the Project and Goals:
The proposal lacked clarity on long-term sustainability and development. • Cost:
The budget was imbalanced, with excessive focus on salaries and insufficient investment in programming.
All Evaluation Panel Scores
CRITERIA CARS Bridge
Street
Carl
Berg Maxima MAXIMUM POINTS
Value Add/Breadth of Service 17.33 13.3 7.33 13 20
Project Team 14 9 5.67 9.33 15
References 4.67 3.67 2 3.67 5
Experience 17.67 13 6.67 18.33 20
Demonstration of Understanding of the
Project and Goals 18.33 11.67 7 13.67 20
Cost 17 12 4.67 13 20
TOTAL POINTS 89 62.7 33.3 71 100