BMAD-METHOD/expansion-packs/bmad-rfq-government/tasks/review-simulation.md

Review Simulation Task

Purpose

• Simulate government evaluator review process to identify proposal weaknesses
• Evaluate proposal content against Section M criteria
• Identify compliance gaps and areas for improvement
• Provide structured feedback for proposal enhancement
• Reduce risk of negative evaluation findings

Usage Scenarios

Scenario 1: Section-Level Review

1. Section Selection: Choose specific proposal section for review
2. Criteria Mapping: Identify applicable evaluation criteria
3. Evaluation Simulation: Score section against criteria
4. Improvement Recommendations: Generate specific enhancement suggestions

Scenario 2: Full Proposal Evaluation

1. Evaluation Planning: Establish review approach for entire proposal
2. Comprehensive Review: Evaluate all sections against criteria
3. Findings Compilation: Aggregate strengths, weaknesses, and gaps
4. Strategic Recommendations: Provide prioritized improvement plan

Task Instructions

1. Evaluation Preparation

Preparation Process:

1. Evaluation Criteria Analysis:

   • Extract Section M evaluation factors and subfactors
   • Identify scoring methodology (adjectival, numerical, etc.)
   • Determine relative importance of criteria
   • Map criteria to proposal sections

2. Review Team Setup:

   • Define review roles (technical, management, past performance)
   • Establish scoring guidelines and standards
   • Create evaluation worksheets
   • Set up review documentation process

3. Baseline Establishment:

   • Determine minimum acceptable scores
   • Identify critical success factors
   • Establish evaluation priorities
   • Define "must win" criteria

4. Competitive Context:

   • Consider likely competitor approaches
   • Identify areas requiring differentiation
   • Determine competitive benchmark standards
   • Assess relative strengths and weaknesses

2. Evaluation Simulation Process

Simulation Methodology:

1. Pink Team Review (Early Compliance Check):

   • Verify requirement coverage from compliance matrix
   • Check section alignment with RFQ structure
   • Identify missing content or requirements
   • Assess initial win theme integration
   • Provide early course correction guidance

2. Red Team Review (Evaluator Simulation):

   • Score proposal using Section M criteria
   • Identify strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies (SWaRD)
   • Evaluate technical approach feasibility
   • Assess management approach effectiveness
   • Review past performance relevance and quality
   • Provide detailed scoring rationale

3. Gold Team Review (Executive Assessment):

   • Evaluate overall proposal strategy effectiveness
   • Assess executive summary impact
   • Review key discriminator presentation
   • Evaluate proposal from senior decision-maker perspective
   • Provide high-level strategic guidance

4. Final Review (Pre-submission Verification):

   • Confirm all previous review findings addressed
   • Verify compliance with all requirements
   • Conduct final quality and consistency check
   • Ensure all evaluation criteria are addressed
   • Provide submission readiness assessment

3. Findings Documentation

Documentation Components:

1. Strengths Identification:

   • Document positive discriminators
   • Highlight effective win theme integration
   • Note areas exceeding requirements
   • Identify compelling evidence and proof points

2. Weakness Documentation:

   • Flag compliance gaps or omissions
   • Identify unclear or unconvincing content
   • Note areas lacking evidence or proof
   • Highlight potential evaluation concerns

3. Risk Assessment:

   • Identify solution or approach risks
   • Note areas with insufficient risk mitigation
   • Flag potential pricing or resource risks
   • Document compliance or responsiveness risks

4. Deficiency Reporting:

   • Document non-compliant elements
   • Identify missing required content
   • Flag incorrect or misaligned responses
   • Note formatting or structural issues

4. Improvement Recommendations

Recommendation Process:

1. Prioritized Enhancement Plan:

   • Rank findings by impact on evaluation
   • Identify critical vs. nice-to-have improvements
   • Create actionable improvement tasks
   • Establish timeline for revisions

2. Section-Specific Guidance:

   • Provide targeted recommendations by section
   • Suggest specific content enhancements
   • Recommend additional evidence or proof points
   • Propose structural or organization improvements

3. Strategic Adjustments:

   • Recommend win theme refinements
   • Suggest competitive differentiation enhancements
   • Propose emphasis shifts based on evaluation priorities
   • Identify opportunities for strategic messaging

4. Implementation Support:

   • Provide examples or templates for improvements
   • Offer specific language suggestions
   • Recommend graphic or visual enhancements
   • Create revision checklists for authors

Best Practices

• Evaluator Mindset: Review from the perspective of government evaluators, not proposal authors
• Criteria Focus: Base all evaluations strictly on Section M criteria
• Evidence-Based: Provide specific examples for all findings
• Constructive Approach: Frame weaknesses with actionable improvement recommendations
• Prioritized Feedback: Focus on highest-impact improvements first
• Objective Assessment: Evaluate based on what's actually in the proposal, not what authors intended
• Comprehensive Coverage: Review all sections against all applicable criteria
• Documentation Discipline: Maintain detailed records of all findings and recommendations

Integration Points

• Compliance Matrix Generation: Verifies requirements coverage
• Win Theme Development: Assesses theme effectiveness and integration
• Proposal Content Generation: Provides feedback for content improvement
• Submission Checklist: Ensures all compliance issues are addressed

Related Agents

• Evaluator Simulator: Primary agent for this task