Compliance Verification Checklist
Purpose
This checklist ensures that the proposal fully addresses all RFQ requirements and is structured for maximum compliance. It helps proposal teams verify that every requirement is properly traced, addressed, and evidenced in the proposal.
Instructions
- Complete this checklist before each review gate (Pink, Red, Gold)
- Mark each item as either:
- ✅ Compliant (fully meets requirement)
- ❌ Non-compliant (fails to meet requirement)
- ⚠️ Partially Compliant (needs improvement)
- For any non-compliant or partially compliant items, note specific actions needed
- Address all issues before proceeding to next review gate
Compliance Matrix Verification
| # |
Item |
Status |
Notes |
| 1.1 |
All RFQ requirements identified and included |
|
|
| 1.2 |
Requirements properly atomized (one requirement per line) |
|
|
| 1.3 |
Each requirement has unique identifier |
|
|
| 1.4 |
Source references (section, page) accurate |
|
|
| 1.5 |
All requirements mapped to proposal sections |
|
|
| 1.6 |
Ownership assigned for each requirement |
|
|
| 1.7 |
Status tracking current and accurate |
|
|
Section L Compliance
| # |
Item |
Status |
Notes |
| 2.1 |
Proposal structure follows Section L instructions |
|
|
| 2.2 |
All required sections/subsections included |
|
|
| 2.3 |
Page limits respected for each volume/section |
|
|
| 2.4 |
Formatting requirements followed (font, margins, etc.) |
|
|
| 2.5 |
Required forms and attachments included |
|
|
| 2.6 |
File naming conventions followed |
|
|
| 2.7 |
Required certifications included |
|
|
Section M Alignment
| # |
Item |
Status |
Notes |
| 3.1 |
All evaluation factors addressed |
|
|
| 3.2 |
Evaluation subfactors explicitly covered |
|
|
| 3.3 |
Content organized to facilitate evaluation |
|
|
| 3.4 |
Strengths highlighted for each evaluation factor |
|
|
| 3.5 |
Potential weaknesses mitigated |
|
|
| 3.6 |
Proposal language mirrors evaluation criteria |
|
|
| 3.7 |
Win themes aligned with evaluation factors |
|
|
SOW/PWS Requirements
| # |
Item |
Status |
Notes |
| 4.1 |
All technical requirements addressed |
|
|
| 4.2 |
All management requirements addressed |
|
|
| 4.3 |
All deliverables clearly identified |
|
|
| 4.4 |
Performance metrics/SLAs acknowledged |
|
|
| 4.5 |
Technical approach covers all SOW sections |
|
|
| 4.6 |
Staffing plan addresses all labor categories |
|
|
| 4.7 |
All "shall/will/must" statements addressed |
|
|
Traceability Verification
| # |
Item |
Status |
Notes |
| 5.1 |
Requirements explicitly referenced in narrative |
|
|
| 5.2 |
Traceability maintained throughout proposal |
|
|
| 5.3 |
Cross-references accurate and functional |
|
|
| 5.4 |
Evidence provided for all capability claims |
|
|
| 5.5 |
Graphics and tables properly referenced |
|
|
| 5.6 |
Acronyms defined at first use |
|
|
| 5.7 |
Consistent terminology throughout proposal |
|
|
Quality Control
| # |
Item |
Status |
Notes |
| 6.1 |
No compliance gaps identified |
|
|
| 6.2 |
No contradictions between sections |
|
|
| 6.3 |
No "TBD" or placeholder content |
|
|
| 6.4 |
All graphics/tables have captions |
|
|
| 6.5 |
All claims supported by evidence |
|
|
| 6.6 |
All requirements verified by second reviewer |
|
|
| 6.7 |
Final compliance matrix matches proposal content |
|
|
Verification Summary
Compliance Status: [Fully Compliant / Partially Compliant / Non-Compliant]
Critical Issues:
[List any critical compliance issues that must be addressed]
Recommendations:
[Provide specific recommendations to address compliance gaps]
Approval
| Role |
Name |
Verification |
Date |
| Proposal Manager |
|
|
|
| Compliance Lead |
|
|
|
| Technical Lead |
|
|
|
| Quality Control |
|
|
|