Template:Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid evaluation

Table of scores given by the IOC Working Group to assess the quality and feasibility of Rio de Janeiro's bid[1]
Criteria Weight Grade[α] Feasibility
Min Max Planned Min Max
Accommodation 5 5.5 6.4 3–5 star rooms 0.7 0.9
  Accommodation concept (20%) 5.0 7.0 Media villages 0.7 0.8
  Number of rooms (80%) Other rooms 0.6 0.9
Environmental conditions and impact 2 5.6 7.6 0.80
  Current environmental conditions (40%) 5.0 7.0 0.85
  Environmental impact (60%) 6.0 8.0 0.85
Experience from past sports events 2 6.6 7.9
  Number of major international events organized (60%) 7.0 8.5 Categories[β]
  Quality of the events (40%) 6.0 7.0 Commercial revenue
Finance 3 6.0 7.7 Commercial revenue projection of USD 750 million considered feasible. Brazil listed at A4 by COFACE Country Risk Rating out of seven risk levels (A1, A2, A3, A4, B, C and D, in order of increasing risk).
General infrastructure 5 5.3 7.2
  Airport (5%) 5.0 7.5
  International Broadcast Center–Main Press Center (15%) 6.0 8.0
  Transport infrastructure (85%) Existing 5.0 7.0 Telecommunications
Planned and additional 7.0 9.0 Brazil appear to offer a satisfactory level of development with modernisation plans underway that would support the 2016 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, according to an IDATE Report.
Government support, legal issues and public opinion 3 7.3 8.8
  Government support & commitment (70%) 7.0 9.0
  Olympic Charter, legal aspects and anti-doping measures (15%) 8.0 9.0
  Public opinion (15%) 7.7
Olympic Village 3 6.0 7.7 Glossary
  Concept (40%) 6.0 8.0
  • Grade: Value (on a scale of 0 to 10) attributed by the IOC Working Group to the main and sub-criteria, using the format of an interval comprising a minimum and maximum grade.
  • Feasibility: Probability of a project being achieved in the proposed timeframe. A factor (value of 0.1 to 1.0) applicable to the grades can penalise the project to which it is attributed.
  • Weight: Importance given by the IOC Working Group to a main or sub-criterion in relation to other criteria or sub-criteria.
  Legacy (20%) 8.0 9.0
  Location (40%) 6.0 8.0
Overall project and legacy 3 5.5 8.0
Safety and security 3 4.5 7.0
Sports venues 4 5.8 7.4
  Existing venues (35%) 5.0 7.0
  Olympic Games sports concept & legacy (30%) 6.0 8.0
  Planned and additional venues (35%) 6.5 8.0 Notes
Transport concept 3 5.5 7.5

α The IOC Working Group set the benchmark at 6 as the minimum required grade.
β The IOC Working Group commissioned reports about the presented categories instead of attributing grades based on the Applicant File.

  Distances and travel times (50%) 5.0 7.0
  Transport organisation and traffic management at Games-time (50%) 6.0 8.0
Total average 6.4


References

edit
  1. ^ 2016 Working Group Report (PDF). International Olympic Committee. March 14, 2008. Retrieved March 2, 2010.