Thank you for being willing to be on the panel to select the contracts and partnerships for SomArt @ the Hive for rehearsals and classes.

Context

All applicants have visited the following pages before submitting an application:

Rehearsals https://somartspace.org/rfp-ongoing-rehearsals/

Classes https://somartspace.org/request-for-proposals-classes/

Partnerships https://somartspace.org/class-program-partner/

Information about each use and relationship type are included in those pages.

Program Priorities

SomArt exists to create accessible creative space to create new work in the form of rehearsals, classes, labs, showings, and performances. SomArt currently operates at the Hive (561 Windsor) and the Somerville Armory (191 Highland). These applications are solely for the Hive space as the Armory does not accept applications at this time due to the RFP process at the City level. It’s unclear if SomArt will continue its programming at the Armory.

SomArt is also a municipal program. It is not a non-profit nor is it a privately run business. It’s a civic-run program. With that context, we are looking to support activities that could not necessarily sustain themselves organically within the current market, and that enrich the lives of the public through artistic and cultural values. This is why criteria such as non-commercial purpose and financial need are included — the government is there to sustain activities that are valuable to the public and that need subsidies to exist.

Financial consideration are secondary in terms of sustainability for SomArt. The rubric prioritizes how the artist/organization fulfills a need in the community before we ask how much they are paying. We have structured the pricing accordingly so it’s standard/within policy and should not factor into scoring decisions. SomArt is partially financed through the artist fees themselves as well as a direct line item within the Somerville Arts Council Budget. That said, subsidy is not full or infinite. There is a balance between those two sources of revenue in order to create sustainability for the program.

Schedule is a significant factor in the selection process, but it is not the panel’s primary job to adjudicate it. Your job is to score on merit. Staff will handle scheduling logistics after scores are collected.

That said, here is what you need to know: Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings after 4pm are reserved for performances and technical rehearsals and are not available for ongoing contracts. This is communicated in multiple places in the RFP pages and within the application itself — some applicants will have requested these times anyway. If you notice a requested time falls in this category, note it on the score sheet, but score the application on its merits regardless. Staff will reach out to strong applicants about alternative times where appropriate.

Similarly, some time slots will have more than one applicant requesting them. Score each application independently on its own merits — do not adjust scores based on competition for a slot. Where a slot is contested, scores will inform the staffing decision. Where a slot has only one applicant who meets minimum criteria, acceptance is largely administrative.

Scoring Criteria

Rehearsal Proposals

Total weighted score = sum of (score × weight) across all criteria.

Criterion	What We’re Evaluating	Guide Question
Creating New Work 45%	Does the proposal include the creation of new work? This can include contemporary forms both known and experimental. Proposals that primarily serve working or pre-professional artists score higher within this criterion than those primarily serving recreational participants — the space is a professional resource and prioritizes professional use.	Is this proposal generative — making something new — rather than maintaining existing repertoire? Who is it primarily for: working artists, pre-professional artists, or recreational participants?
Non-Commercial / Financial Need 15%	Is the proposed rehearsal a non-commercial activity that furthers exploration, education, evolution, and development within the form? Does this rehearsal have a barrier to accessing market-rate rehearsal space?	Would this work struggle to sustain itself at market rate? Is the program civic in nature rather than commercially driven?
Specific Space Need 20%	Does the proposed rehearsal require the amenities the Hive provides — marley floor, no-shoes policy, sound system, clear sightlines, noise tolerance? Could it be held in a smaller or less equipped space?	Is the Hive genuinely necessary for this work, or would it function equally well elsewhere?
Enriching Community 10%	Does the applicant have a track record of enriching their community through their artistic practice — through public performance, education, accessibility, or cultural contribution?	Does this work reach beyond the studio? Does the applicant have demonstrated community impact?
Prior Relationship with SomArt 5%	Has the applicant used SomArt spaces before? If so, did they demonstrate responsible use — consistent checkout compliance, no or resolved policy infractions, reliable communication? New applicants default to a neutral mid-range score on this criterion.	Is this a known quantity? Has the applicant shown they know how to be in the space? This will be filled out by SomArt/SAC staff
Somerville Based 5%	Does the applicant have a history of creating, presenting, or rehearsing in Somerville? Is the work rooted in or contributing to the Somerville arts community?	Is there a Somerville connection — not just proximity, but active participation in the local ecosystem?

Class Proposals

Total weighted score = sum of (score × weight) across all criteria.

Note: Class proposals include both standard class contracts and Program Partnership (revenue share) applications. Partnership applications are scored using the same criteria, but several criteria include partnership-specific modifiers noted within each description. When reviewing a partnership application, read the full criterion description carefully — promotion capacity, revenue potential, and proven track record of producing open classes are folded into the relevant criteria and should influence scoring accordingly.

Criterion	What We’re Evaluating	Guide Question
Creating New Work 45%	Does the proposal support education for the creation of new work? This can include forms both known and experimental — technique classes, creative labs, choreography, somatics, emergent practices. Proposals that primarily serve working or pre-professional artists score higher within this criterion than those primarily serving recreational participants — the space is a professional resource and prioritizes professional use. For partnership applicants: also consider promotion capacity and revenue potential. A strong class proposal with a weak or vague promotion plan is a risk — does the applicant demonstrate a real, active audience they can activate? Does their projected attendance and pricing suggest the revenue share model is financially viable for both parties? A proven track record of producing open classes with documented attendance scores higher than a first-time offering at equivalent artistic merit.	Does this class cultivate the conditions for new work to be made? Is it generative rather than purely recreational? Who is it primarily for: working artists, pre-professional artists, or recreational participants? For partnership proposals: does the applicant have a real audience and a credible plan to fill the room?
Non-Commercial / Financial Need 15%	Is the proposed class a non-commercial activity that furthers exploration, education, evolution, and development within the form? Could this class afford market-rate class rental space? For partnership applicants: the revenue share model already self-selects for financial need, but evaluate whether the applicant genuinely could not sustain this class at flat rate — or whether they are primarily seeking advantageous terms. The civic subsidy should go to work that needs it, not work that can afford the market.	Would this class struggle to sustain itself at market rate? Is the program civic in nature rather than commercially driven? For partnership proposals: is the revenue share model a genuine enabler, or a preference?
Specific Space Need 20%	Does the proposed class require the amenities the Hive provides — marley floor, no-shoes policy, sound system, clear sightlines, noise tolerance? Could it be held in a smaller or less equipped space?	Is the Hive genuinely necessary for this class, or would it function equally well elsewhere?
Enriching Community 10%	Does the applicant have a track record of enriching their community through teaching — through access, mentorship, public contribution, or cultivation of the next generation of artists? For partnership applicants: also consider whether the applicant has an established community relationship that will translate into attendance. A teacher who enriches community but has no active outreach practice is a partnership risk. Community impact and promotional reach are related but distinct — look for evidence of both.	Does this teacher bring something to the community beyond the class itself? Is there demonstrated impact? For partnership proposals: does the applicant have an active relationship with their community that will drive attendance, or is their community engagement passive?
Prior Relationship with SomArt 5%	Has the applicant used SomArt spaces before? If so, did they demonstrate responsible use — consistent checkout compliance, no or resolved policy infractions, reliable communication? New applicants default to a neutral mid-range score on this criterion. For partnership applicants: prior relationship carries additional weight. A returning partner who has demonstrated reliable promotion, accurate revenue reporting, and consistent attendance is a known quantity. A new applicant with no track record at SomArt carries more uncertainty in a partnership context than in a standard contract — factor this into the overall assessment.	Is this a known quantity? Has the applicant shown they know how to be in the space? For partnership proposals: has this applicant demonstrated the specific reliability — promotion, reporting, attendance — that the partnership model requires? This will be filled out by SomArt/SAC staff
Somerville Based 5%	Does the applicant have a history of creating, presenting, or teaching in Somerville? Is the work rooted in or contributing to the Somerville arts community?	Is there a Somerville connection — not just proximity, but active participation in the local ecosystem?

A Note on Partnership Applications

Three applicants in this cycle applied through the partnership track. Partnership applicants are scored using the same six criteria as standard class applicants — score them the same way, using the partnership-specific modifiers noted in each criterion description.

However, after completing the six criteria for each partnership applicant, you will also complete a Partnership Viability Assessment. This is a separate qualitative recommendation — it does not change the numerical score, but it informs whether a slot, if awarded, comes with a standard contract or a revenue-share partnership agreement.

The question you are answering is: does this applicant have what the partnership model specifically requires — a real audience, a credible promotion plan, a track record of producing open classes? A strong class can score well and still not be a viable partnership. The assessment gives you a place to say that explicitly, and gives staff a documented basis for the conversation with the applicant.

Partnership Viability Assessment

For partnership applicants only. This assessment is separate from the weighted score and does not affect the numerical total. It is a qualitative recommendation that informs the contract type offered, not whether a slot is awarded.

Partnership applicants are scored on the same six criteria as standard class applicants. However, a competitive score on those criteria does not automatically qualify an applicant for the revenue-share partnership model. The partnership model carries specific operational requirements — consistent promotion, accurate attendance reporting, reliable communication, and a demonstrated ability to fill a room — that are distinct from the artistic and civic merits evaluated in the scored criteria.

After completing the six scored criteria for a partnership applicant, answer the following:

Does this applicant demonstrate the specific conditions that make the partnership model viable? Consider: Do they have an active, reachable audience? Is their promotion plan specific and credible, or vague? Do they have a track record of producing open classes with documented attendance? If they are a returning SomArt partner, have they demonstrated reliable reporting and consistent attendance?

Yes — the applicant meets the bar for the partnership model. Recommend partnership contract if slot is awarded.

Conditional — the applicant shows potential but has gaps. Recommend standard class contract if slot is awarded, with a note to revisit partnership eligibility in a future cycle.

No — the partnership model is not appropriate for this applicant at this time. Recommend standard class contract if slot is awarded.

Insufficient information — the application does not provide enough detail to assess partnership viability.

Also consider whether this applicant genuinely needs the partnership model — not just whether they can execute it. The revenue-share structure exists to make class offerings viable for artists and organizations that cannot sustain flat-rate rental costs. If an applicant has organizational funding, contributed income, or other institutional support that already subsidizes their operations, the civic subsidy may be redundant or better directed elsewhere. A strong organizational infrastructure is an asset for partnership execution, but it should not displace an applicant who has fewer resources and equally strong programming. Ask: is the partnership model a genuine financial enabler for this applicant, or is it a preferred arrangement for an organization that could afford the market rate?

Final Selection

Scores are one input. Final selections also account for scheduling fit, space balance, and curatorial judgment about the overall program composition. A high-scoring proposal may not be selected if the time slot is unavailable or if acceptance would create an imbalance in the schedule. A lower-scoring proposal may be selected if it fills a genuine gap that no higher-scoring proposal addresses.

Document any deviations from score order with a brief note. This protects the integrity of the process and creates a record for future review cycles.