Jump to content

Template:Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid evaluation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.