213 lines
7.4 KiB
YAML
213 lines
7.4 KiB
YAML
# <!-- Powered by BMAD™ Core -->
|
|
template:
|
|
id: evaluation-report-template
|
|
name: Evaluation Report Template
|
|
version: 1.0
|
|
output:
|
|
format: markdown
|
|
filename: docs/evaluation-report.md
|
|
title: "{{rfq_number}} Evaluation Report"
|
|
|
|
workflow:
|
|
mode: interactive
|
|
elicitation: advanced-elicitation
|
|
|
|
sections:
|
|
- id: overview
|
|
title: Overview
|
|
content: |
|
|
This template provides a structured format for simulating government evaluator reviews of proposal content. It helps identify strengths, weaknesses, and compliance issues before submission to maximize evaluation scores.
|
|
|
|
- id: usage-instructions
|
|
title: Usage Instructions
|
|
content: |
|
|
1. Select proposal section(s) for evaluation
|
|
2. Apply relevant Section M evaluation criteria
|
|
3. Conduct objective assessment from evaluator perspective
|
|
4. Document findings and recommendations
|
|
|
|
- id: template-structure
|
|
title: Template Structure
|
|
sections:
|
|
- id: report-header
|
|
title: Report Header
|
|
type: code
|
|
language: markdown
|
|
content: |
|
|
# [RFQ Number] Evaluation Report
|
|
# [Agency Name]
|
|
# [RFQ Title]
|
|
# [Date]
|
|
# [Review Type: Pink Team / Red Team / Gold Team]
|
|
|
|
- id: executive-summary
|
|
title: Executive Summary
|
|
elicit: true
|
|
sections:
|
|
- id: overall-assessment
|
|
title: Overall Assessment
|
|
template: |
|
|
**Adjectival Rating**: {{adjectival_rating}}
|
|
|
|
**Summary Assessment**:
|
|
{{summary_assessment}}
|
|
|
|
**Key Strengths**:
|
|
|
|
- {{strength_1}}
|
|
- {{strength_2}}
|
|
- {{strength_3}}
|
|
|
|
**Critical Weaknesses**:
|
|
|
|
- {{weakness_1}}
|
|
- {{weakness_2}}
|
|
- {{weakness_3}}
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation**:
|
|
{{recommendation}}
|
|
instruction: Provide overall assessment, strengths, weaknesses, and recommendation
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "**Adjectival Rating**: Outstanding / Good / Acceptable / Marginal / Unacceptable"
|
|
- "**Recommendation**: Submit as is / Minor revisions needed / Major revisions needed / Significant rework required"
|
|
|
|
- id: detailed-evaluation
|
|
title: Detailed Evaluation
|
|
elicit: true
|
|
sections:
|
|
- id: technical-factor-template
|
|
title: Technical Factor [Factor Name]
|
|
template: |
|
|
**Adjectival Rating**: {{factor_rating}}
|
|
|
|
**Strengths**:
|
|
|
|
1. {{strength_description_1}}
|
|
- **Impact**: {{strength_impact_1}}
|
|
- **Evidence**: {{strength_evidence_1}}
|
|
|
|
2. {{strength_description_2}}
|
|
- **Impact**: {{strength_impact_2}}
|
|
- **Evidence**: {{strength_evidence_2}}
|
|
|
|
**Weaknesses**:
|
|
|
|
1. {{weakness_description_1}}
|
|
- **Impact**: {{weakness_impact_1}}
|
|
- **Recommendation**: {{weakness_recommendation_1}}
|
|
|
|
2. {{weakness_description_2}}
|
|
- **Impact**: {{weakness_impact_2}}
|
|
- **Recommendation**: {{weakness_recommendation_2}}
|
|
|
|
**Risks**:
|
|
|
|
1. {{risk_description_1}}
|
|
- **Impact**: {{risk_impact_1}}
|
|
- **Mitigation Recommendation**: {{risk_mitigation_1}}
|
|
|
|
**Deficiencies**:
|
|
|
|
1. {{deficiency_description_1}}
|
|
- **Impact**: {{deficiency_impact_1}}
|
|
- **Correction Required**: {{deficiency_correction_1}}
|
|
instruction: Repeat this section structure for each evaluation factor
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "**Adjectival Rating**: Outstanding / Good / Acceptable / Marginal / Unacceptable"
|
|
|
|
- id: compliance-assessment
|
|
title: Compliance Assessment
|
|
elicit: true
|
|
sections:
|
|
- id: section-l-compliance
|
|
title: Section L Compliance
|
|
type: table
|
|
columns: [Requirement, Compliant, Notes]
|
|
instruction: Fill in the compliance assessment table
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "| [Requirement] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [Notes] |"
|
|
- "| [Requirement] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [Notes] |"
|
|
- "| [Requirement] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [Notes] |"
|
|
|
|
- id: section-m-alignment
|
|
title: Section M Alignment
|
|
type: table
|
|
columns: [Evaluation Factor, Addressed, Effectiveness, Notes]
|
|
instruction: Fill in the alignment assessment table
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "| [Factor] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [High/Medium/Low] | [Notes] |"
|
|
- "| [Factor] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [High/Medium/Low] | [Notes] |"
|
|
- "| [Factor] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [High/Medium/Low] | [Notes] |"
|
|
|
|
- id: win-theme-assessment
|
|
title: Win Theme Assessment
|
|
elicit: true
|
|
sections:
|
|
- id: win-theme-table
|
|
title: Win Theme Incorporation
|
|
type: table
|
|
columns: [Win Theme, Effectively Incorporated, Notes]
|
|
instruction: Fill in the win theme assessment table
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "| [Theme] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [Notes] |"
|
|
- "| [Theme] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [Notes] |"
|
|
- "| [Theme] | [Yes/No/Partial] | [Notes] |"
|
|
|
|
- id: improvement-recommendations
|
|
title: Improvement Recommendations
|
|
elicit: true
|
|
sections:
|
|
- id: priority-1
|
|
title: Priority 1 (Critical)
|
|
template: |
|
|
- {{critical_recommendation_1}}
|
|
- {{critical_recommendation_2}}
|
|
- {{critical_recommendation_3}}
|
|
instruction: Provide specific critical recommendations with reference to proposal sections
|
|
|
|
- id: priority-2
|
|
title: Priority 2 (Important)
|
|
template: |
|
|
- {{important_recommendation_1}}
|
|
- {{important_recommendation_2}}
|
|
- {{important_recommendation_3}}
|
|
instruction: Provide specific important recommendations with reference to proposal sections
|
|
|
|
- id: priority-3
|
|
title: Priority 3 (Enhancement)
|
|
template: |
|
|
- {{enhancement_recommendation_1}}
|
|
- {{enhancement_recommendation_2}}
|
|
- {{enhancement_recommendation_3}}
|
|
instruction: Provide specific enhancement recommendations with reference to proposal sections
|
|
|
|
- id: evaluator-perspective
|
|
title: Evaluator Perspective Notes
|
|
elicit: true
|
|
template: |
|
|
{{evaluator_notes}}
|
|
instruction: Provide additional notes from evaluator perspective, including overall impressions, potential scoring considerations, and comparative assessment against likely competitors
|
|
|
|
- id: review-team
|
|
title: Review Team
|
|
elicit: true
|
|
type: table
|
|
columns: [Role, Name, Section Reviewed]
|
|
instruction: Fill in the review team information
|
|
examples:
|
|
- "| [Role] | [Name] | [Section] |"
|
|
- "| [Role] | [Name] | [Section] |"
|
|
- "| [Role] | [Name] | [Section] |"
|
|
|
|
- id: best-practices
|
|
title: Best Practices for Evaluation Simulation
|
|
content: |
|
|
- **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
|