# Evaluation Criteria Checklist

## Purpose

This checklist helps proposal teams simulate the government evaluation process by systematically reviewing proposal content against Section M evaluation criteria. It enables teams to identify strengths, weaknesses, and compliance issues before submission, increasing the likelihood of favorable evaluation scores.

## Instructions

1. Complete this checklist during review simulation (Pink, Red, or Gold Team)
2. Mark each item using the appropriate adjectival rating:
   - ⭐⭐⭐ Outstanding (exceeds requirements, significant strengths)
   - ⭐⭐ Good (meets requirements, some strengths)
   - ⭐ Acceptable (meets minimum requirements)
   - ⚠️ Marginal (deficiencies that may be correctable)
   - ❌ Unacceptable (significant deficiencies)
3. Document specific strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations
4. Address all issues before proceeding to next review gate

## Technical Approach Evaluation

| #   | Evaluation Criteria                          | Rating | Strengths | Weaknesses | Recommendations |
| --- | -------------------------------------------- | ------ | --------- | ---------- | --------------- |
| 1.1 | Understanding of requirements                |        |           |            |                 |
| 1.2 | Soundness of technical approach              |        |           |            |                 |
| 1.3 | Feasibility of proposed solution             |        |           |            |                 |
| 1.4 | Innovation and technical merit               |        |           |            |                 |
| 1.5 | Completeness of technical solution           |        |           |            |                 |
| 1.6 | Technical risk identification and mitigation |        |           |            |                 |
| 1.7 | Technical compliance with requirements       |        |           |            |                 |

## Management Approach Evaluation

| #   | Evaluation Criteria                 | Rating | Strengths | Weaknesses | Recommendations |
| --- | ----------------------------------- | ------ | --------- | ---------- | --------------- |
| 2.1 | Program management methodology      |        |           |            |                 |
| 2.2 | Organizational structure            |        |           |            |                 |
| 2.3 | Staffing approach and key personnel |        |           |            |                 |
| 2.4 | Quality assurance processes         |        |           |            |                 |
| 2.5 | Schedule management                 |        |           |            |                 |
| 2.6 | Risk management approach            |        |           |            |                 |
| 2.7 | Communication and reporting         |        |           |            |                 |

## Past Performance Evaluation

| #   | Evaluation Criteria                | Rating | Strengths | Weaknesses | Recommendations |
| --- | ---------------------------------- | ------ | --------- | ---------- | --------------- |
| 3.1 | Relevance to current requirement   |        |           |            |                 |
| 3.2 | Recency of past performance        |        |           |            |                 |
| 3.3 | Quality of performance             |        |           |            |                 |
| 3.4 | Customer satisfaction              |        |           |            |                 |
| 3.5 | Scope and complexity similarity    |        |           |            |                 |
| 3.6 | Contract type similarity           |        |           |            |                 |
| 3.7 | Documentation and evidence quality |        |           |            |                 |

## Staffing & Key Personnel Evaluation

| #   | Evaluation Criteria                    | Rating | Strengths | Weaknesses | Recommendations |
| --- | -------------------------------------- | ------ | --------- | ---------- | --------------- |
| 4.1 | Key personnel qualifications           |        |           |            |                 |
| 4.2 | Staffing levels adequacy               |        |           |            |                 |
| 4.3 | Labor category alignment               |        |           |            |                 |
| 4.4 | Subject matter expertise               |        |           |            |                 |
| 4.5 | Retention and recruitment              |        |           |            |                 |
| 4.6 | Training and development               |        |           |            |                 |
| 4.7 | Organizational structure effectiveness |        |           |            |                 |

## Price/Cost Evaluation

| #   | Evaluation Criteria          | Rating | Strengths | Weaknesses | Recommendations |
| --- | ---------------------------- | ------ | --------- | ---------- | --------------- |
| 5.1 | Price reasonableness         |        |           |            |                 |
| 5.2 | Cost realism (if applicable) |        |           |            |                 |
| 5.3 | Price competitiveness        |        |           |            |                 |
| 5.4 | Labor rate justification     |        |           |            |                 |
| 5.5 | Cost assumptions validity    |        |           |            |                 |
| 5.6 | Price volume compliance      |        |           |            |                 |
| 5.7 | Value proposition clarity    |        |           |            |                 |

## Overall Compliance Evaluation

| #   | Evaluation Criteria                 | Rating | Strengths | Weaknesses | Recommendations |
| --- | ----------------------------------- | ------ | --------- | ---------- | --------------- |
| 6.1 | Section L compliance                |        |           |            |                 |
| 6.2 | Section M alignment                 |        |           |            |                 |
| 6.3 | SOW/PWS requirements coverage       |        |           |            |                 |
| 6.4 | Formatting and structure compliance |        |           |            |                 |
| 6.5 | Cross-volume consistency            |        |           |            |                 |
| 6.6 | Win theme effectiveness             |        |           |            |                 |
| 6.7 | Overall proposal quality            |        |           |            |                 |

## Evaluation Summary

**Overall Rating:** [Outstanding / Good / Acceptable / Marginal / Unacceptable]

**Key Strengths:**
[List major strengths that would be noted by evaluators]

**Key Weaknesses:**
[List significant weaknesses that would be noted by evaluators]

**Critical Recommendations:**
[List highest priority improvements needed]

## Review Team

| Role                       | Name | Signature | Date |
| -------------------------- | ---- | --------- | ---- |
| Review Lead                |      |           |      |
| Technical Evaluator        |      |           |      |
| Management Evaluator       |      |           |      |
| Past Performance Evaluator |      |           |      |
| Price Evaluator            |      |           |      |