169 lines
6.0 KiB
Markdown
169 lines
6.0 KiB
Markdown
<!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
|
|
|
# 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
|