[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6K3THHCGXGHTEHS4VKSXBN0":3,"skill-same:01M6K3THHCGXGHTEHS4VKSXBN0":63},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":15,"categories":16,"keywords":17,"publishedAt":35,"linkOnly":36,"markdownContent":37,"markdownBody":38,"frontMatter":39,"refName":42,"commitSha":43,"skillDirectory":44,"forksCount":45,"repositoryHtmlUrl":46,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":47,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":48,"install":49,"resources":62},"01M6K3THHCGXGHTEHS4VKSXBN0","vendor-proposal-scorecard",null,"Create or refine a proposal evaluation scorecard with weighted criteria, scoring rubrics, evaluator notes fields, and a process structure that supports a defensible, fair, and documented award recommendation.","BrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT","BrianPillmore","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F89977304?v=4","01M6K3S5PAA7GX17DJCHR5QFZ2","01M6K3S5TAA6HKGD1BY6VTV0QB",1,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fdata-and-research\u002Fvendor-proposal-scorecard\u002FSKILL.md",[],[18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34],"vendor proposal scorecard","scorecard","vendor","proposal","structure","number","with","recommendation","evaluator","name","notes","refine","scoring","rfp","process","Evaluation","create","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: vendor-proposal-scorecard\ndescription: Create or refine a proposal evaluation scorecard with weighted criteria, scoring rubrics, evaluator notes fields, and a process structure that supports a defensible, fair, and documented award recommendation.\nargument-hint: [rfp-name or solicitation-number]\n---\n\n## Purpose\nDesign 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.\n\n## Required inputs\n- The RFP or draft RFP (scope, requirements, instructions to proposers, evaluation criteria and weights as published).\n- 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).\n- Evaluator roster and expertise; schedule for evaluation and interviews.\n\n## Workflow\n1. 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\u002Fcompliance, references, price). State the weight of price as a stated percentage; do not use unpublished factors.\n2. Define pass\u002Ffail requirements separately from scored criteria (licensing, insurance, mandatory forms, minimum experience).\n3. 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\").\n4. 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).\n5. 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.\n6. 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.\n7. Calibration: test the rubric with a sample response to verify evaluators interpret criteria alike; set variance thresholds for discussion.\n8. 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.\n\n## Output structure\n| Criterion | Weight | Rubric descriptors (0\u002F1\u002F3\u002F5) | Evidence required | Evaluator score | Comments (page cite) |\nAdd: price formula, pass\u002Ffail checklist, evaluator instructions, conflict attestation, tabulation sheet, and timeline. See also procurement-bid-evaluator\u002Fscorecard-template.md.\n\n## Red flags \u002F escalate\n- Weights or criteria differ from the published RFP.\n- Criteria written to favor a known vendor.\n- Evaluators with conflicts, or inconsistent interview questions.\n- Price weighted so low that it cannot differentiate, or so high it ignores quality, contrary to the policy.\n- Local preference not permitted for the funding source.\n- Any protest or request to change criteria after opening: city attorney.\n\n## Common mistakes\n- Double counting the same factor in two criteria.\n- Too many criteria, diluting weights.\n- No documentation of why scores differ.\n- Letting evaluators see price before technical scoring when the process requires separation.\n\n## State-law variance\nProcurement code rules for RFP evaluation, price weight, and preferences differ by state.\n","## Purpose\nDesign 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.\n\n## Required inputs\n- The RFP or draft RFP (scope, requirements, instructions to proposers, evaluation criteria and weights as published).\n- 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).\n- Evaluator roster and expertise; schedule for evaluation and interviews.\n\n## Workflow\n1. 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\u002Fcompliance, references, price). State the weight of price as a stated percentage; do not use unpublished factors.\n2. Define pass\u002Ffail requirements separately from scored criteria (licensing, insurance, mandatory forms, minimum experience).\n3. 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\").\n4. 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).\n5. 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.\n6. 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.\n7. Calibration: test the rubric with a sample response to verify evaluators interpret criteria alike; set variance thresholds for discussion.\n8. 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.\n\n## Output structure\n| Criterion | Weight | Rubric descriptors (0\u002F1\u002F3\u002F5) | Evidence required | Evaluator score | Comments (page cite) |\nAdd: price formula, pass\u002Ffail checklist, evaluator instructions, conflict attestation, tabulation sheet, and timeline. See also procurement-bid-evaluator\u002Fscorecard-template.md.\n\n## Red flags \u002F escalate\n- Weights or criteria differ from the published RFP.\n- Criteria written to favor a known vendor.\n- Evaluators with conflicts, or inconsistent interview questions.\n- Price weighted so low that it cannot differentiate, or so high it ignores quality, contrary to the policy.\n- Local preference not permitted for the funding source.\n- Any protest or request to change criteria after opening: city attorney.\n\n## Common mistakes\n- Double counting the same factor in two criteria.\n- Too many criteria, diluting weights.\n- No documentation of why scores differ.\n- Letting evaluators see price before technical scoring when the process requires separation.\n\n## State-law variance\nProcurement code rules for RFP evaluation, price weight, and preferences differ by state.\n",{"name":5,"description":7,"argument-hint":40},[41],"rfp-name or solicitation-number","master","edf1fceb08dc8ba63f1ad9159df28c1e0ef449fb","skills\u002Fdata-and-research\u002Fvendor-proposal-scorecard",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore","2026-11-02 04:58:40",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":50,"prompt":60,"zipAvailable":61},[51,54,57],{"tool":52,"command":53},"npx","npx skills add BrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT --skill vendor-proposal-scorecard",{"tool":55,"command":56},"bunx","bunx skills add BrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT --skill vendor-proposal-scorecard",{"tool":58,"command":59},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add BrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT --skill vendor-proposal-scorecard","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fdata-and-research\u002Fvendor-proposal-scorecard\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[64,82,96,128,147,161],{"skillNo":65,"name":66,"nameZh":6,"description":67,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":68,"categories":69,"keywords":70,"publishedAt":35},"01M6K466QB0Q2EVZRJ5X1XY21C","town-hall-kit","Prepare a town hall kit with agenda, ground rules, likely questions, follow-up method, and message priorities.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-engagement\u002Ftown-hall-kit\u002FSKILL.md",[],[71,72,73,74,24,75,76,77,78,79,80,81],"town hall kit","kit","follow-up","questions","event","agenda","prepare","priorities","message","Rules","up",{"skillNo":83,"name":84,"nameZh":6,"description":85,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":86,"categories":87,"keywords":88,"publishedAt":35},"01M6K462B8XJ2FFYH8BAXR0ZM5","speechwriter","Draft remarks for the mayor, council, manager, or department head in a strong but grounded municipal voice.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-engagement\u002Fspeechwriter\u002FSKILL.md",[],[84,89,90,91,92,93,75,94,95],"draft","council","voice","but","head","manager","for",{"skillNo":97,"name":98,"nameZh":6,"description":99,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":100,"categories":101,"keywords":112,"publishedAt":35},"01M6K45Z8MYT7FVMV48WE0MACS","social-post-series","Generate a multi-post city social media series with tone control, accessibility, and channel fit.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-engagement\u002Fsocial-post-series\u002FSKILL.md",[102,107],{"categoryNo":103,"categoryName":104,"taxonomyType":105,"taxonomyTypeDesc":106},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000019","营销推广","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":108,"categoryName":109,"taxonomyType":110,"taxonomyTypeDesc":111},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000035","市场营销","PROFESSION","适用职业",[113,114,115,116,117,118,119,24,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127],"social post","series","post","social","social post series","fit","multi","social media","control","accessibility","generate","Media","channel","campaign","tone",{"skillNo":129,"name":130,"nameZh":6,"description":131,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":132,"categories":133,"keywords":137,"publishedAt":35},"01M6K45W3AWHA1GMZV2PRDYJBS","public-comment-summarizer","Synthesize hearing or meeting comments into themes, misconceptions, unanswered questions, and response options.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-engagement\u002Fpublic-comment-summarizer\u002FSKILL.md",[134],{"categoryNo":135,"categoryName":136,"taxonomyType":110,"taxonomyTypeDesc":111},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000034","行政与办公人员",[138,139,140,141,142,143,144,74,145,146],"public","public comment summarizer","public comment","summarizer","options","synthesize","themes","comments","meeting",{"skillNo":148,"name":149,"nameZh":6,"description":150,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":151,"categories":152,"keywords":153,"publishedAt":35},"01M6K45QWBXSDMGQTA1E9NC43M","press-release-writer","Write a city press release that is accurate, readable, and aligned with legal and operational review needs.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-engagement\u002Fpress-release-writer\u002FSKILL.md",[],[154,155,156,157,158,159,160,24],"press release writer","press release","writer","release","review","write","legal",{"skillNo":162,"name":163,"nameZh":6,"description":164,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":6,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":165,"categories":166,"keywords":168,"publishedAt":35},"01M6K45JXZRSW4XXH78FTRBB2A","meeting-notice-drafter","Draft a legally sufficient public notice for any city council, board, commission, or committee meeting — covering required content, posting deadlines, and special-meeting or emergency-meeting rules.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FBrianPillmore\u002FMayorGPT\u002Fblob\u002Fmaster\u002Fskills\u002Fpublic-engagement\u002Fmeeting-notice-drafter\u002FSKILL.md",[167],{"categoryNo":135,"categoryName":136,"taxonomyType":110,"taxonomyTypeDesc":111},[169,146,170,171,80,138,172,89,173,174,95,90],"meeting notice drafter","notice","content","board","posting","type"]