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

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