| name | sow-pws-builder |
| description | Build Statements of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statements (PWS) for federal contracts through a structured scope decision workflow that produces a contract-file-ready .docx and a separate chat-only staffing handoff table for the IGCE Builder. Use this skill whenever the user asks to write a SOW, PWS, statement of work, performance work statement, convert a SOO to a SOW/PWS, develop requirements, define contract scope, build a work statement, or draft requirement language. Also trigger when the user says they need a SOW/PWS before building an IGCE, when they have a SOO and need to develop it into executable requirements, or when they need to reduce scope to fit a budget. The SOW/PWS document NEVER contains staffing tables, FTE counts, labor category counts, or IGCE-related content; that data lives in a separate chat-output handoff for the IGCE Builder skills (FFP, LH/T&M, CR). Do NOT use for IGCEs themselves (use IGCE Builder skills). Do NOT use for market research reports.
|
SOW/PWS Builder
Overview
This skill walks a program office (or analyst acting on their behalf) through structured scope decisions and assembles the answers into a properly formatted SOW or PWS. The core insight: the program office doesn't need to know FTE counts or cost estimates up front — they need to make scope decisions, and staffing falls out as a derived output.
Outputs (TWO SEPARATE ARTIFACTS — never combined):
-
A .docx SOW or PWS with standard federal sections — the contract file deliverable. This document contains NO staffing table, NO FTE counts, NO labor category counts, NO SOC codes, NO hours-per-year estimates, and NO IGCE-related content. FAR 37.102(d) requires the requirement to be described in terms of results, not hours or number of people performing the work. The one narrow exception is T&M/LH contracts, which get a Labor Category Ceiling Hours table in Section 5 per FAR 16.601(c)(2) — see Phase 2 Section 5 for details.
-
A staffing handoff table — an internal government workpaper presented in chat output only at the end of the skill run. This is the data handoff to the IGCE Builder skills (FFP, LH/T&M, CR). It is NEVER embedded in the SOW/PWS document. It is NEVER saved as a companion .docx or any other file. It exists solely as a markdown/code-block table in the conversation so the user can review it and the downstream IGCE Builder can consume it.
No external APIs required. This is a decision tree + document generation skill.
Regulatory basis: FAR 37.102(d) (describe work in terms of results, not hours or number of people), FAR 37.602 (performance-based acquisition), FAR 46.401 (quality assurance), FAR 7.105 (written acquisition plans — requirement description), FAR 16.601(c)(2) (T&M/LH ceiling price mechanism).
Workflow Selection
Workflow A: Full Build (Default)
User needs a SOW/PWS from scratch or from a rough concept. Execute all three phases.
Triggers: "write a SOW," "build a PWS," "I need a work statement for..."
Workflow B: SOO Conversion
User has an existing SOO and needs it developed into a SOW/PWS. Start with Phase 0 (SOO intake), then Phases 1–3.
Triggers: "convert this SOO to a SOW," "develop this SOO into a PWS," "we have a SOO and need a work statement."
Workflow C: Scope Reduction
User has an existing SOW/PWS or IGCE output that exceeds budget. Walk through scope decision tree to identify what to cut, then produce a revised document.
Triggers: "this is too expensive, what can we cut," "reduce scope to fit budget," "need to descope."
Acquisition Strategy Intake
Before diving into the scope decision tree, collect three framing decisions that shape everything that follows. Ask these up front, in a single pass, before Block 1. These are the acquisition strategy context — they determine document type, pricing structure, and FAR Part applicability.
Intake Question 1: SOW or PWS?
| SOW | PWS |
|---|
| Prescribes | Tasks and methods (how) | Outcomes and standards (what) |
| Contractor flexibility | Low — government directs approach | High — contractor proposes approach |
| Best for | Well-understood, repeatable work | Complex or innovative requirements |
| QASP focus | Task completion | Performance metrics |
| FAR preference | — | FAR 37.602 prefers PBA/PWS |
If the user is unsure, default to PWS — it's the FAR-preferred approach for services and gives the contractor room to propose efficient solutions. The decision tree is identical either way; only the output language changes.
Intake Question 2: Contract Type?
FFP | T&M | LH | CR | Hybrid (specify)
This is asked up front (not in Block 5) because contract type frames the rest of the scope decisions:
- FFP pairs naturally with PWS (outcomes + performance standards). Contractor owns labor mix risk. No labor info in the document body.
- T&M and LH require Labor Category Ceiling Hours in Section 5 per FAR 16.601(c)(2). The SOW/PWS must tell offerors what LCATs to propose rates against and the ceiling hours per period.
- CR (cost-reimbursement) pairs with either SOW or PWS. No labor info in the document body. Requires approved accounting system findings before award per FAR 16.301-3.
- Hybrid — identify which CLINs are which type; apply the rules per CLIN.
If the user says "unsure," recommend FFP for well-defined services, T&M for requirements where level of effort is unknown, and CR for R&D or high-uncertainty work. FAR Part 16 analysis is the contracting officer's call — this skill accepts the user's decision; it does not advise on contract type selection.
Intake Question 3: Commercial or Non-Commercial?
Commercial service (FAR Part 12) | Non-commercial (FAR Part 15) | Unsure — flag for Contracting Officer
- Commercial service = routinely sold to the general public in the course of normal business operations, per FAR 2.101 commercial product/service definition. Help desk services, facility maintenance, COTS software support, training, staff augmentation for standard skills are typically commercial.
- Non-commercial = government-unique work such as classified, research, weapon systems development, or work performed using specialized government processes not available in the commercial marketplace.
- When commercial, FAR Part 12 governs. FAR 52.212-4 terms apply in Section I of the solicitation; full Section I/L buildout is not required. Contract type is typically FFP per FAR 12.207. Performance-based description is preferred per FAR 12.102(g). CLIN structure (emitted in the Phase 3 chat-only handoff, not the PWS body) should accommodate commercial item pricing.
- When non-commercial, FAR Part 15 governs. Full Section I/L clause buildout applies. All contract types available.
- If the user is unsure, note "Commercial item determination pending — flag for Contracting Officer" in Section 14 Constraints and Assumptions and proceed with Phase 1.
Why these three questions come first
The issue a requirement writer faces: the same scope decisions produce different document language, different clause references, and different FAR Part applicability depending on these three framing choices. Collecting them up front means Phase 1 can frame its questions accordingly (e.g., for a commercial FFP PWS, skip Phase 1 questions about Government-unique processes; for a T&M SOW, ask more detail about labor categories and ceilings). It also means the generated document in Phase 2 can reference the correct FAR sections and clauses without a retrofit.
Phase 0: SOO Intake (Workflow B Only)
When the user provides an existing SOO:
-
Read and extract. Parse the SOO for: background, objectives, constraints, performance location, period of performance, known systems, volume data, key personnel, security requirements, and any appendix data.
-
Gap identification. Flag what the SOO provides vs. what a SOW/PWS needs:
- ✅ Typically present in SOO: background, high-level objectives, constraints, PoP, location
- ❌ Typically missing from SOO: task decomposition, staffing, deliverables with acceptance criteria, CLIN structure, QASP metrics, reporting cadence, transition details
- ⚠️ If the SOO's scope implies a standard it doesn't explicitly state (availability for high-volume systems, security for PII/FISMA systems, continuity for mission-critical systems), add the implied objective and flag it in Section 14 as a derived objective.
-
Decision bridge. Present the gaps as the questions Phase 1 will answer. Frame it as: "The SOO tells us what the agency wants to achieve. Phase 1 asks the questions that turn objectives into executable requirements."
-
Carry forward. Pre-populate Phase 1 answers with anything the SOO already decided (location, PoP, known constraints). Don't re-ask settled questions.
Phase 1: Scope Decision Tree
Ask questions in this sequence. Each decision narrows scope and implies staffing. Present as structured choices, not open-ended questions. Collect in a single pass where possible.
Phase 1 execution: On platforms that expose a structured multi-choice prompt tool (claude.ai web chat provides AskUserQuestion), use it for Acquisition Strategy Intake and Blocks 1-6. Batch 3-4 related questions per prompt block. Reserve prose for genuinely open-ended answers (ticket volume, system names, incumbent details). Every multi-choice question must include an "Other" / "Something else" free-text escape.
Anti-redundancy: Before asking any framing or scope question, check whether the user's initial prompt already answers it. Do not re-ask explicit answers; confirm silently and proceed.
Block 1: Mission and Service Model
- What is the core service? (Provide options based on context, or ask open-ended if starting from scratch)
- Service delivery model: Government FTEs with contractor augmentation | Fully contracted service | Hybrid (specify which functions are FTE vs. contractor)
- Coverage model: Business hours (M-F 8-5) | Extended hours (specify) | 24/7/365 | Seasonal/surge
- Geographic scope: Single site | Multi-site (how many?) | Virtual/remote | Hybrid
Block 2: Technical Scope
- Build vs. Buy: Custom development | COTS/SaaS configuration | Hybrid (custom integrations on COTS platform)
- Systems in scope: List all systems the contractor will build, configure, integrate with, or maintain. For each: new build vs. existing system.
- Integration complexity: Standalone | Integrates with 1-3 systems | Integrates with 4+ systems | Enterprise-wide integration
- Data migration: No legacy data | Migrate from 1-2 sources | Migrate from 3+ sources | Complex multi-system consolidation
- AI/automation: None | Basic automation (IVR, rules-based routing) | AI-assisted (NLP, ML classification) | Advanced AI (chatbots, predictive analytics)
Block 3: Scale and Volume
- Transaction/contact volume: Provide numbers if known, or characterize as low/medium/high
- User population: Internal users (how many?) | External/public-facing | Both
- Concurrent user requirements: If applicable
- Growth expectations: Stable | Moderate growth (10-25%/yr) | High growth (>25%/yr) | Unknown
Block 4: Organizational Scope
- How many organizational units? (offices, centers, divisions served)
- Phasing: All at once | Phased rollout (how many phases?) | Pilot then expand
- Stakeholder complexity: Single program office | Multiple offices, single agency | Cross-agency
Block 5: Contract Structure
Contract type is already captured in the Acquisition Strategy Intake above; do not re-ask it here.
- Period of performance: Base year + option years (how many?)
- Base year scope: Full performance from day 1 | Ramp-up/transition-in period (how long?) | Design/development only, production in options
- CLIN structure preference (for Section B handoff, NOT the PWS body): By period (CLINs = base year, OY1, OY2...) | By function (CLINs = development, operations, maintenance, training) | By deliverable | Unsure (skill will recommend). This preference is emitted as a chat-only CLIN Handoff Table in Phase 3 for the CO to paste into Section B of the solicitation. It does NOT go into the SOW/PWS document body.
- Transition requirements: Transition-in from incumbent? | Transition-out plan required? | Both
Block 6: Quality and Oversight
- Acceptable quality level (AQL): For key performance metrics — e.g., 95% first-call resolution, 99.95% uptime, <2hr mean time to resolve
- Reporting cadence: Weekly | Monthly | Quarterly | As-needed
- Key personnel: Which roles must be designated as key? (PM always; others?)
Decision-to-Staffing Derivation Rules
After collecting decisions, derive the staffing implications. These are heuristics, not formulas:
| Decision | Staffing Implication |
|---|
| 24/7 coverage | Minimum 3x the single-shift headcount for covered roles |
| Custom development | 1 architect + 2-4 developers per major system/module |
| COTS configuration | 1 architect + 1-2 configurators per platform |
| AI/NLP components | +1-2 data scientists or ML engineers |
| 4+ system integrations | +1-2 integration/middleware engineers |
| Data migration from 3+ sources | +1 data engineer + 1 DBA (may be time-limited to base year) |
| Multi-site or 3+ org units | +1 change management/training specialist per 2-3 units |
| Contact center: volume ÷ 250 days ÷ contacts/agent/day | = required agent headcount (adjust for FTE vs. contractor split) |
| Agile development | 1 scrum master or PM per 2 dev teams (team = 5-7 people) |
| FISMA/security requirements | +1 information security analyst |
| O&M phase | Typically 40-60% of development-phase staffing |
| Transition-in | +0.5-1 FTE for knowledge transfer (time-limited) |
Present the derived staffing table to the user for validation before proceeding to Phase 2. Format:
Task Area | Labor Category | Est. FTEs | Derivation Basis | Phase
Development | Solution Architect | 1 | Enterprise CRM platform | Base-OY1
Development | Software Developer | 4 | 2 Agile teams × 2 devs | Base-OY1
Operations | Tier 1 Agent | 10 | 127K contacts ÷ vol/day | Base-OY4
O&M | Systems Admin | 2 | 50% of dev staffing | OY2-OY4
User validation gate. The user confirms, adjusts, or overrides any line. If they override, document the override reason — it matters for the IGCE methodology narrative.
Phase 2: Document Assembly
Phase 2 Invocation Gate
Before invoking the docx skill for document generation, present a Phase 1 Decision Summary in chat. The summary must include:
- The three framing answers (SOW/PWS, contract type, commercial/non-commercial)
- All derived defaults with one-line rationale for each
- The Section 3 structure (task areas for SOW, performance objectives for PWS)
Wait for the user to reply "proceed" (or correct any item) before generating the .docx. Do this even when the user has waived interactive Phase 1 — it provides a catch point before a large document generation locks in framing errors and preserves progress if the session is interrupted.
DO NOT self-approve. Presenting the Decision Summary and then immediately continuing to docx generation in the same response (e.g., emitting "Proceeding to document assembly now" or similar without waiting for user input) defeats the entire purpose of the gate. The user must have an opportunity to read the summary, catch a wrong default, and redirect before the .docx is built. After presenting the Decision Summary, the response must END. Wait for the next user message containing "proceed" (or a correction) before invoking the docx skill. This applies even when the user's original prompt was richly specified. The intake defaults applied in Phase 1 are your inferences; the user is entitled to review them before commitment.
Generate the SOW or PWS using the docx skill. Read /mnt/skills/public/docx/SKILL.md before generating output. Include a Table of Contents after the title block when the document will contain more than 8 sections.
SOW/PWS Section Structure
Section ordering is prescriptive. The sections below appear in the document in the exact order shown. Do not merge, combine, swap, or rename them. In particular: Section 11 is Reporting and Oversight, Section 12 is QASP Summary, Section 13 is Transition, Section 14 is Constraints and Assumptions. If a contract-type-specific section is omitted (Section 5 is T&M/LH only), renumber subsequent sections sequentially but preserve the relative order of all remaining sections.
Section 1: Introduction
- 1.1 Purpose
- 1.2 Background (from SOO or user input)
- 1.3 Scope Summary (one paragraph synthesizing all Phase 1 decisions)
- 1.4 Applicable Documents and Standards
Section 2: Definitions and Acronyms
Section 3: Requirements (this is the core — structure depends on SOW vs. PWS)
For SOW: Section 3 is organized by task area. Each task has:
- Task number and title
- Task description (what the contractor shall do)
- Subtasks if applicable
- Deliverables produced by this task
- Government-furnished resources for this task
For PWS: Section 3 is organized by performance objective. Each objective has:
- Objective number and title
- Required outcome (what the contractor shall achieve)
- Performance standard (measurable threshold)
- Acceptable Quality Level
- Method of assessment (inspection, demonstration, analysis, test)
- Incentive/disincentive if applicable
Section 4: Deliverables
- Deliverables table: ID | Title | Description | Format | Frequency | Due Date/Trigger | Acceptance Criteria
- Standard deliverables to always include: Monthly Status Report, Transition-In Plan (if applicable), Transition-Out Plan, System Documentation, Training Materials
Section 5: Labor Category Ceiling Hours (T&M/LH only)
CLINs do NOT go in the SOW/PWS body. CLIN structure is a pricing/contract-admin construct that belongs in Section B of the UCF solicitation. Including a CLIN table in the SOW/PWS either creates a conflict when the CO drops a real Section B on top, or reveals the document isn't actually a SOW/PWS but a mashed-up mini-contract. The CLIN preferences gathered in Block 5 of the intake are emitted as a chat-only CLIN Handoff Table in Phase 3 for the CO to paste into Section B. They never appear in the document body.
T&M/LH only (FAR 16.601(c)(2)): If the contract type selected in the Acquisition Strategy Intake is T&M or LH, Section 5 is titled "Labor Category Ceiling Hours" and contains a single table telling offerors which labor categories the government expects them to propose rates against and the ceiling hours per LCAT per period. It is a pricing risk-sharing mechanism, NOT an FTE estimate or staffing prescription. Table columns: Labor Category | Base Year Ceiling Hours | OY1 | OY2 | OY3 | OY4 | Total Ceiling. Do NOT include SOC codes, FTE counts, "derivation basis," or anything resembling the Phase 3 staffing handoff table.
For FFP and CR contracts: omit Section 5 entirely and renumber subsequent sections. Do not substitute a CLIN table, pricing schedule, or any other pricing content.
CPFF contracts — explicit form commitment required (FAR 16.306(d)): For any Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract, the document must explicitly identify whether the contract is completion form (FAR 16.306(d)(1)) or term form (FAR 16.306(d)(2)) at the first place the contract framework is described (typically the opening framing table or Section 1.1 Purpose). This is non-negotiable. The two forms have materially different fee-earning mechanics:
- Completion form (16.306(d)(1)): describes the scope in terms of a definite goal or end product. The contractor must complete and deliver the specified end product before the full fixed fee is earned. Use for CPFF where the deliverable is bounded and defined (e.g., a report, a prototype, a validated analytical model).
- Term form (16.306(d)(2)): describes the scope in general terms and obligates the contractor to devote a specified level of effort over a stated time period. Fee is earned across the level-of-effort period. Use for CPFF R&D where technical success is uncertain and the contractor cannot be expected to guarantee a specific end product.
- When selecting: for R&D with defined end deliverables (characterization data, technology maturation reports, subscale hardware), either form can work but term form is usually more appropriate because R&D success is not guaranteed. For production-oriented CPFF with a defined end product, completion form is appropriate. When unsure, default to term form and flag the selection in Section 14 for CO confirmation.
- Never cite only "FAR 16.306" without the (d)(1) or (d)(2) subparagraph.
Section 6: Period of Performance
Section 7: Place of Performance
Section 8: Government-Furnished Property/Information
Section 9: Security Requirements
- Unclassified contracts: address information safeguarding (FAR 52.204-21 Basic Safeguarding and, when CUI is in scope, NIST SP 800-171), personnel suitability (Public Trust at the appropriate tier), and any agency-specific baseline (e.g., GSA IT security policy, DHS MD 11042.1, NASA IT security standards).
- Classified contracts — REQUIRED references when any clearance at Confidential or higher is called out:
- DD Form 254 (Contract Security Classification Specification). State that a DD Form 254 will be issued at contract award and incorporated into the contract by reference. The DD 254 is the authoritative document for classified-contract handling requirements; no classified PWS/SOW is complete without referencing it.
- Security Classification Guide (SCG). Reference the applicable SCG by title (or placeholder "[program-specific SCG to be identified in DD 254]") as the source for derivative-classification decisions.
- Clearance by position and facility. Identify the clearance level required for each position or position category (e.g., "all contractor personnel: Top Secret with SCI access"), the facility clearance requirement (e.g., ICD 705-accredited SCIF, Secret-cleared facility), and any program-specific access requirements (polygraph, NdA, read-on).
- Derivative classification and OPSEC. Incorporate EO 13526, the applicable ISOO regulations, and derivative classification training requirements (typically annual). Address OPSEC obligations.
- Incident reporting. Cite agency-specific classified-incident reporting timelines (typically 1 hour to the Government security officer).
- NISPOM applies to cleared contractor facilities; cite as applicable.
Section 10: Key Personnel
- Roles, minimum qualifications, certification requirements
- Only roles where government needs approval of specific individuals
- Substitution language: state that substitution of any Key Personnel requires prior written approval of the Contracting Officer. Do NOT cite FAR 52.237-2 — that clause is "Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment, and Vegetation" and has nothing to do with Key Personnel substitution. Instead cite the agency-appropriate clause:
- NASA contracts: NFS 1852.237-72 (Access to Sensitive Information) governs the Key Personnel substitution process
- DHS contracts: HSAR 3052.237-72 (Key Personnel or Facilities)
- HHS contracts: HHSAR 352.237-75 (Key Personnel)
- DoD contracts: agency-specific DFARS supplement clause if applicable
- Generic default when agency supplement is unknown: cite FAR 52.237-3 (Continuity of Services) for continuity obligations and leave the Key Personnel substitution as contract-specific custom language rather than a specific FAR 52 citation
- Never emit "FAR 52.237-2" as the Key Personnel substitution clause
- DO NOT include FTE counts, labor category counts, SOC codes, hours-per-year, staffing tables, or any "how many" information in Section 10 or anywhere else in the SOW/PWS body. Key Personnel names ROLES (Program Manager, Technical Lead, Information Security Officer) with minimum qualifications — it does not quantify the workforce. FAR 37.102(d) requires the requirement to be described in terms of results, not hours or number of people performing the work. The Phase 3 staffing handoff table is for the IGCE Builder only, lives in chat output, and never appears in this document — not as a section, not as an appendix, not as a table at the bottom.
Section 11: Reporting and Oversight
- Reporting schedule and content requirements
- Meeting cadence (kickoff, weekly status, monthly program review, quarterly executive)
- Points of contact
Section 12: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Summary
- Performance metrics table: Metric | Standard | AQL | Method | Frequency | Payment Consequence
- Full QASP may be a separate document; include summary here
- For SOW documents, title this section "Inspection and Acceptance" and cite FAR 52.246-series clauses as the inspection basis. For PWS documents, keep "QASP Summary" and cite FAR 37.602 / 46.401. Table structure is identical; label and legal basis differ.
CRITICAL: Do NOT tie QASP thresholds to CPARS ratings. CPARS (FAR 42.15) is a separate post-performance evaluation with fixed FAR rating categories (Exceptional / Very Good / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory) based on the CO's judgment across the full factor set. It is NOT bound by QASP threshold mechanics and cannot be pre-committed in a SOW/PWS. Writing "95% threshold = CPARS Satisfactory" is both legally wrong and defeats the point of performance-based acquisition.
The Payment Consequence column must describe what happens to payment or contract administration when the threshold is missed. Acceptable examples:
- "Below threshold: 5% deduction on the monthly invoice for the affected objective."
- "Below AQL for two consecutive months: cure notice issued per FAR 52.212-4(m)."
- "Three consecutive months below threshold: consideration for termination for cause / default."
- "Exceeding threshold by X%: positive incentive fee of $Y per [period] (CPIF/award-fee only)."
- "Acceptance withheld until correction; re-performance at no additional cost."
Do NOT put CPARS ratings, CPARS thresholds, or the words "Satisfactory / Exceptional / Very Good / Marginal / Unsatisfactory" in the Payment Consequence column. Those belong in the post-performance CPARS evaluation, not the QASP.
Section 13: Transition
- 13.1 Transition-In (if applicable): knowledge transfer, incumbent cooperation, parallel operations
- 13.2 Transition-Out: data return, documentation, contractor cooperation, timeline
Section 14: Constraints and Assumptions
- Document each derived default using a 4-column table: ID | Assumption/Default Applied | Rationale | CO or Program Office Action Required. Mark each item [DEFAULT] so the CO can scan for items requiring confirmation before solicitation release.
- Workflow C (Scope Reduction) — cut documentation compliance: When documenting reductions in Section 14, describe prior and revised scope in terms of CAPABILITIES AND COVERAGE, not staffing counts. The document body remains subject to FAR 37.102(d) even for historical/prior-state descriptions. Compliant: "Prior: standing detection engineering capability; Revised: cadence-based deliverable model (12 detections/quarter)." NON-compliant: "Prior: 2-3 FTE detection engineers; Revised: 1 FTE lead." Each cut block uses: Prior Scope (capability) | Revised Scope (capability) | Estimated Annual Savings | Rationale | Residual Risk.
Appendices (as applicable):
- A: Current Environment Description
- B: Volume Data and Historical Metrics
- C: System Interface Specifications
- D: Acronym List
The appendix set above is the only authorized appendix set for the SOW/PWS. Include only those applicable; omit the rest. DO NOT create any staffing-related appendix under any title (variants seen in practice: "Implied Staffing Table," "IGCE Handoff," "FTE Allocation," "Labor Category Staffing"). The staffing handoff is a separate chat-output artifact (see Phase 3); it does not belong anywhere in this document, including as a supplement after Appendix D.
Language Rules
SOW language: "The contractor shall [verb]..." — prescriptive, task-oriented.
PWS language: "The contractor shall achieve/maintain/ensure..." — outcome-oriented, measurable.
Avoid:
- "Support" as a standalone verb (too vague — support how?)
- "As needed" or "as required" without defining the trigger
- "Best practices" without specifying which standard
- "Coordinate with" without specifying the deliverable or decision that results
- Requirements that cannot be measured or verified
Every requirement must be: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. If a requirement fails any of these, flag it for the user during assembly.
Phase 3: Validation and Handoff
UNCONDITIONAL RULE: At the end of every run, present BOTH chat-only handoff tables as markdown blocks in chat: (1) the Staffing Handoff Table for the IGCE Builder, and (2) the CLIN Handoff Table for Section B of the solicitation. Both are REQUIRED, not optional, regardless of contract type, commercial status, or whether the user mentions downstream skills. The staffing table is informational for commercial FFP (where the contractor owns labor mix risk) and load-bearing for T&M/LH/CR. The CLIN handoff is always emitted because Section B is always separate from Section C (the PWS). Do not skip or self-edit based on judgment that the user "won't need it."
Document Review Checklist
Before presenting the final document, verify:
Staffing Handoff Table (CHAT OUTPUT ONLY — NEVER IN THE DOCUMENT)
After the SOW/PWS .docx is saved to disk, present the staffing handoff table as chat output only. It is NOT a section of the SOW/PWS. It is NOT saved as a .docx, .xlsx, .csv, or any other file. It exists solely as a markdown table in the conversation so (a) the user can review the derived staffing for scope validation, and (b) the IGCE Builder skill can consume it as input when the user says "build the IGCE."
Present it like this, verbatim:
=== STAFFING HANDOFF TABLE — FOR IGCE BUILDER ===
Internal government workpaper. NOT part of the SOW/PWS contract deliverable.
Do not paste this into the contract file.
| Labor Category | SOC Code | FTEs | Phase | Hrs/Yr | Notes |
|-------------------------|----------|------|--------------|--------|-------|
| Program Manager | 13-1082 | 1 | Base-OY4 | 1,880 | Key personnel |
| Software Developer | 15-1252 | 4 | Base-OY1 | 1,880 | Reduces to 1 in OY2+ |
| Tier 1 Agent | 43-4051 | 10 | Base-OY4 | 1,880 | Derivation: 127K contacts ÷ volume/day |
| Systems Admin | 15-1244 | 2 | OY2-OY4 | 1,880 | O&M phase only |
Include rows for every labor category derived in Phase 1. Notes should capture user overrides and derivation basis. Columns are fixed: Labor Category, SOC Code, FTEs, Phase, Hours/Yr, Notes.
After the table, tell the user in plain chat prose: "This staffing table is ready for handoff to the IGCE Builder. Say 'build the IGCE' and I'll hand it off to the FFP, LH/T&M, or CR skill based on the contract type selected in the Acquisition Strategy Intake. The IGCE Builder will produce the formal Independent Government Cost Estimate as a separate .docx document — that's where the staffing, rates, wraps, and costs are formally documented for the contract file."
DO NOT, under any circumstances:
- Write the staffing table into the SOW/PWS document body, any section, or any appendix.
- Save the staffing table as a separate .docx, .xlsx, .csv, .md, or any other file format.
- Label any part of the SOW/PWS as "Staffing Implications Table," "Implied Staffing Table," "Staffing Table," "Labor Category Staffing," "IGCE Handoff," or any similar phrasing.
- Include the phrases "ready for the IGCE Builder," "say 'build the IGCE'," "FFP skill," "IGCE development," or any skill-chain plumbing messaging anywhere in the SOW/PWS document.
- Emit the table as anything other than a markdown code block or markdown table in the chat conversation.
Why this rule exists: Offerors anchor on FTE counts when they appear in a requirement document regardless of any "not prescriptive" disclaimer. That violates FAR 37.102(d). The data is still needed; it just belongs in chat output between skills, not in the contract file deliverable.
The one exception is the T&M/LH Labor Category Ceiling Hours table in Section 5 per FAR 16.601(c)(2). That is a pricing mechanism (ceiling hours, no SOC codes, no FTE counts, no derivation basis) and is not the same thing as this staffing handoff table.
CLIN Handoff Table (CHAT OUTPUT ONLY — NEVER IN THE DOCUMENT)
After the staffing handoff table, present the CLIN Handoff Table. Same pattern, same rules: chat-only markdown, never written to the SOW/PWS body, never saved as a file. CLINs live in Section B of the solicitation, not the PWS. This table exists so the CO can paste it into their Section B draft.
Present it verbatim:
=== CLIN HANDOFF TABLE — FOR SECTION B OF THE SOLICITATION ===
Contract-admin workpaper. NOT part of the SOW/PWS contract deliverable.
Paste into Section B of the solicitation shell, not the PWS body.
| CLIN | Description | Pricing Basis | Period / Scope Notes |
|------|------------------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------|
| 0001 | Base Year Performance | FFP | Covers Sections 3.x objectives |
| 0002 | Base Year Travel | Cost-reimbursable (NTE) | FAR 31.205-46; no fee |
| 0003 | Base Year ODCs | Cost-reimbursable (NTE) | Receipts required |
| 1001 | Option Year 1 Performance | FFP | Same scope as CLIN 0001 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
Build the rows from the CLIN structure preference captured in Block 5 question 19. If the user chose "by period," CLINs are base/OY1/OY2/...; if "by function," CLINs are development/operations/maintenance/training; if "by deliverable," each major deliverable gets its own CLIN. Always add separate travel and ODC CLINs if travel/ODCs are in scope.
After the table, tell the user: "This CLIN structure is a suggested starting point for Section B of the solicitation. It is not part of the SOW/PWS and should not be pasted into the document body. The contracting officer owns the final CLIN structure."
Same DO NOT rules apply as for the Staffing Handoff above: never written into the SOW/PWS body or any appendix, never saved as a file, never relabeled as "CLIN Structure," "CLIN Table," "Pricing Schedule," or similar inside the document, and emitted only as a markdown table in chat.
Why this rule exists: The PWS is Section C of the UCF (description of work). CLINs live in Section B (supplies/services and prices/costs). Including CLINs in the PWS body creates a conflict when the CO drops a real Section B on top.
Edge Cases
User doesn't know the answer to a decision: Provide a recommended default with rationale. Mark it as an assumption in the document. Example: "If you're unsure about coverage model, business hours (M-F 8-5) is the default for non-emergency federal contact centers. I'll mark this as an assumption you can revisit."
SOO is too vague to decompose: If the SOO is under 300 words or provides fewer than 3 actionable scope details, tell the user: "This SOO doesn't have enough specificity to convert directly. I'll use it as background context, but Phase 1 will need to collect most decisions fresh."
Scope exceeds single contract: If Phase 1 decisions imply >50 FTEs, >$75M, or span >3 distinct technical domains, flag that this may need to be broken into multiple contracts. Suggest logical break points (e.g., development vs. operations, platform vs. contact center staffing).
User wants to skip Phase 1: Don't let them. The decision tree is the value. If they say "just write the SOW from this SOO," explain: "The SOO describes objectives, but a SOW requires decisions the SOO intentionally leaves open — like staffing model, build vs. buy, phasing, and CLIN structure. These take about 10 minutes to walk through, and they're what make the SOW defensible."
Budget-constrained scope reduction (Workflow C): When reducing scope to fit budget, work backwards: identify the highest-cost labor categories from the IGCE, map them to tasks/objectives, and present trade-offs: "Removing 24/7 coverage saves ~$X by eliminating night-shift agents, but means no live response outside business hours. Replacing custom AI with COTS chatbot saves ~$Y in developer FTEs but limits NLP accuracy." Let the user choose which scope reductions are acceptable, then regenerate affected SOW/PWS sections.
What This Skill Does NOT Cover
- Pricing or cost estimates — use IGCE Builder skills (FFP, LH/T&M, CR)
- Source selection criteria — separate document, though CLIN structure informs it
- J&A or sole source justification — separate document
- Full QASP — this skill includes a QASP summary table; a detailed QASP with surveillance schedules is a separate deliverable
- Clause selection (Section I/L) — requires contracting officer determination per FAR Parts 12, 15, 16, 52
- Contract type determination — this skill accepts the user's contract type decision; it does not advise on which type to select (that's a FAR 16 analysis)
MIT © James Jenrette / 1102tools. Source: github.com/1102tools/federal-contracting-skills
