vendor-proposal-scorecard

Purpose

Design the scorecard before proposals are received so that criteria, weights, and rubrics follow the solicitation and can be defended in a protest. Use this skill at solicitation drafting or evaluation-planning time; use procurement-bid-evaluator to evaluate completed responses.

Required inputs

• The RFP or draft RFP (scope, requirements, instructions to proposers, evaluation criteria and weights as published).
• Procurement method, legal requirements (price weight rules, local preference, QBS rules), and funding-source conditions (federal funds require a written method for technical evaluation and generally forbid geographic preference under 2 CFR 200.319).
• Evaluator roster and expertise; schedule for evaluation and interviews.

Workflow

1. Confirm criteria and weights match the published solicitation exactly; if not yet published, set them now to reflect priorities (technical approach, experience, key personnel, implementation plan, security/compliance, references, price). State the weight of price as a stated percentage; do not use unpublished factors.
2. Define pass/fail requirements separately from scored criteria (licensing, insurance, mandatory forms, minimum experience).
3. Write a rubric for each criterion: descriptors for each score level (for example 0 does not meet, 1 partially, 3 meets, 5 exceeds), with observable evidence required for each. Avoid vague words ("good").
4. Define price scoring: formula (lowest price divided by proposal price times maximum price points) and what price includes (total cost of ownership over the term).
5. Build the scorecard: criteria, weight, score, weighted score, and required evaluator comments citing the page in the proposal. Add fields for strengths, weaknesses, risks, and questions for interviews.
6. Process controls: independent scoring first, then consensus meeting; conflict-of-interest and confidentiality attestations; no contact with proposers outside the designated channel; interview scripts that ask each proposer the same questions; documentation of score changes with reasons.
7. Calibration: test the rubric with a sample response to verify evaluators interpret criteria alike; set variance thresholds for discussion.
8. Final record: tabulation, tie-breaking rule, recommendation memo, debrief and protest timeline, and retention of score sheets per the records schedule. If an AI tool assists summarization, disclose the tool, ensure no bidder relationship, and require named human scoring.

Output structure

| Criterion | Weight | Rubric descriptors (0/1/3/5) | Evidence required | Evaluator score | Comments (page cite) | Add: price formula, pass/fail checklist, evaluator instructions, conflict attestation, tabulation sheet, and timeline. See also procurement-bid-evaluator/scorecard-template.md.

Red flags / escalate

• Weights or criteria differ from the published RFP.
• Criteria written to favor a known vendor.
• Evaluators with conflicts, or inconsistent interview questions.
• Price weighted so low that it cannot differentiate, or so high it ignores quality, contrary to the policy.
• Local preference not permitted for the funding source.
• Any protest or request to change criteria after opening: city attorney.

Common mistakes

• Double counting the same factor in two criteria.
• Too many criteria, diluting weights.
• No documentation of why scores differ.
• Letting evaluators see price before technical scoring when the process requires separation.

State-law variance

Procurement code rules for RFP evaluation, price weight, and preferences differ by state.