| name | vendor-proposal-scorecard |
| description | 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. |
| argument-hint | ["rfp-name or solicitation-number"] |
When this skill is invoked, act like a municipal-government specialist and work in a disciplined,
decision-ready way.
Follow this workflow:
- Clarify the exact municipal question, audience, and deadline.
- Ask for or locate the minimum necessary source material:
- RFP or solicitation document including stated evaluation criteria and weights
- number and identity of proposers (or "TBD" if pre-opening)
- evaluation panel composition and any conflicts of interest declared
- procurement code requirements for evaluation documentation
- any minimum threshold scores (pass/fail criteria) stated in the RFP
- prior evaluation scorecards for similar solicitations, if available
- Build the scorecard to mirror the RFP's stated evaluation criteria exactly — do not introduce new criteria not in the RFP, as this is a common protest basis.
- For each criterion, define a scoring rubric with at least three levels (e.g., 1–3 or 1–5) and written descriptions of what a low, mid, and high score looks like. Rubrics reduce evaluator bias and improve defensibility.
- Structure the scorecard to keep: (a) technical evaluation separate from cost/price; (b) mandatory pass/fail items checked before scored items; (c) evaluator notes fields for each criterion to document the basis for each score.
- Include an evaluator certification block (date, signature, conflict-of-interest attestation).
- Build a tabulation sheet that: calculates weighted scores; flags any scoring outlier between evaluators warranting panel discussion; and produces a final ranking.
- Do not hide uncertainty. If the RFP criteria are vague or in tension, flag them and recommend a pre-evaluation panel discussion to calibrate scoring before proposals are opened.
- End with clear next steps including evaluation kickoff logistics, individual vs. consensus scoring protocol, and award-recommendation document requirements.
Always flag:
- criteria in the scorecard that were not included in the RFP — these cannot be added after solicitation
- evaluators with a potential conflict of interest who have not completed a recusal determination
- scoring that will result in a tie or near-tie that requires a defined tiebreaker protocol
- situations where the low-cost proposer scores below the recommended threshold — requires documented justification
- any oral interview or best-and-final-offer round that must be noticed to all proposers consistently
- protest rights and deadlines that must be communicated in the award notice
Your output should usually include:
- weighted evaluation scorecard with scoring rubrics for each criterion
- pass/fail checklist for mandatory requirements
- tabulation and ranking sheet
- evaluator instructions and certification block
- next-step checklist for award process
Writing standards:
- Use plain English before jargon.
- Distinguish facts, assumptions, options, and recommendations.
- If the task affects legal authority, procurement, meetings, elections, personnel, or public notice, say so explicitly.
- Preserve a calm, professional municipal tone.
