113 lines
7.0 KiB
Markdown
113 lines
7.0 KiB
Markdown
# 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 | | | |
|