Bid/no-bid decision scorecard
Separate hard gates from hopeful thinking, then score the fit your team can actually support.
GovCon proposal resources
Three guides for the decisions behind the proposal.
Use these working guides to qualify the pursuit, control the requirements, and make the response easier for an evaluator to follow. No motivational fog machine required.
Use what helps
Start with the decision your team is trying to make.
These are internal planning aids, not agency instructions or a substitute for reading the complete solicitation and amendments.
Proposal compliance matrix starter
Turn instructions, evaluation factors, owners, evidence, and response locations into one control sheet.
Evaluator alignment worksheet
Connect what the evaluator must judge to a clear answer, proof, owner, and review question.
Guide 01
Bid/no-bid decision scorecard
Use this before proposal labor becomes a sunk-cost argument. Scoring supports leadership judgment; it does not calculate PWin.
Pass the hard gates first
- The company is eligible for the procurement path and set-aside.
- The required registrations, representations, and certifications are current.
- The team can accept the contract terms or has identified questions and exceptions.
- The response can be completed and submitted through the required system on time.
- The team can perform the work within applicable subcontracting and other performance rules.
| Factor | 0 points | 1 point | 2 points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Customer and mission fit | Little connection | Some relevant knowledge | Clear, current fit |
| Scope and delivery fit | Major capability gap | Gap can be resolved | Demonstrated ability |
| Evidence | Claims without proof | Partial proof | Specific, supportable proof |
| Team and partners | Roles are unclear | Key roles forming | Roles and commitments are clear |
| Evaluation alignment | Unknown | Partly mapped | Strong answer for each major factor |
| Schedule and capacity | Unrealistic | Possible with tradeoffs | Staffed and controlled |
| Business case | Poor economics | Uncertain return | Worth the investment |
0–6Decline or resolve a material gap before proceeding.
7–10Conditional pursuit. Name the gaps, owners, cost, and deadline.
11–14Proceed if every hard gate passes and leadership accepts the investment.
Guide 02
Proposal compliance matrix starter
Build the matrix from the solicitation, not from last year's template. Instructions and evaluation criteria often overlap, but they do different jobs.
Collect
Gather the full notice, solicitation, attachments, forms, Q&A, and amendments.
Extract
Write each mandatory instruction as a separate, testable requirement.
Connect
Link the requirement to the evaluation factor and planned response location.
Assign
Name one owner and the proof or partner input needed to finish the answer.
Verify
Recheck every amendment, cross-reference, page limit, file rule, and submission step.
| Column | What belongs there |
|---|---|
| Source | Section, page, and paragraph where the requirement appears. |
| Requirement | One testable statement, separated from neighboring instructions. |
| Evaluation link | The factor or subfactor that makes the requirement matter. |
| Response location | Volume, section, page target, table, attachment, or form. |
| Owner | One person accountable for the answer and supporting input. |
| Evidence | Metric, example, process, partner commitment, or other support. |
| Status | Not started, drafting, review, resolved, or verified. |
Primary reference: review the current solicitation structure and evaluation language, including the concepts described in FAR 15.204-5 and FAR 15.305. The solicitation controls when its instructions differ from a general guide.
Guide 03
Evaluator alignment worksheet
The goal is not a longer answer. It is a visible path from the evaluation factor to your promise, proof, delivery logic, and risk control.
What must the evaluator decide?
Restate the factor as a plain-language decision, without changing its meaning.
What is our direct answer?
Lead with the conclusion. Do not make the evaluator assemble it from background paragraphs.
What makes the answer credible?
Use allowed metrics, comparable examples, named controls, qualified people, and partner commitments.
What risk have we removed?
Show how the approach protects schedule, quality, transition, security, staffing, or another evaluated concern.
Working row
Complete one row for every major factor or subfactor.
- Evaluator decision
- What must they judge from this section?
- Direct answer
- What should they understand in the first few lines?
- Proof
- Which allowed fact, process, example, or commitment supports it?
- Owner
- Who validates the claim and keeps it current?
- Review test
- Could a reviewer find the answer and proof without explanation?
Final check
A compliant answer can still be hard to evaluate. A persuasive answer can still be noncompliant. The review needs to test both.
Need a second set of eyes
Apply the guides to the actual opportunity.
Start with the public facts and the question your team cannot settle.