How Proposals Are Scored: Evaluation Criteria and Ratings

Every competitive proposal is scored against a fixed set of criteria the government published in advance, and then a source selection official uses those scores to pick a winner. If you understand how that scoring works, you understand what you are actually writing toward. If you do not, you are guessing.

Here is the short version. The government evaluates your proposal only on the factors it named in Section M of the solicitation. It rates each factor using a method it disclosed, usually adjectival or color ratings backed by written findings. Those findings, the strengths and weaknesses in your proposal, are what decide award, not the rating word by itself. This page explains where the criteria come from, how the ratings work, and how the two ways the government can make an award should change what you write.

The criteria are fixed, disclosed, and binding

The governing rule is short and strict. Under FAR 15.305, an agency evaluates competitive proposals and assesses their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. “Solely” is the operative word. Evaluators are not allowed to credit you for something the solicitation did not ask about, and they are not allowed to score you down for something it did not list. Whatever is in Section M is the entire universe of what counts.

This is why reading Section M before you write is not optional. The factors there are the categories you will be graded in, typically some combination of:

• Technical or mission capability. Your approach to doing the work. Usually the heaviest technical factor, often broken into subfactors.
• Past performance. How well you have done similar work before, which is a separate question from whether you have done it at all. Corporate experience asks whether you have done the work; past performance asks how well you did it.
• Management approach. How you will staff, organize, and run the effort. Covered in the management approach and staffing guide.
• Cost or price. What the government will pay, and on some contract types whether that price is realistic. This is where the basis of estimate lives.

Section M also states the relative importance of these factors, and that ranking matters as much as the list. A solicitation will usually tell you whether the technical factors, combined, are more important than price, equal to it, or less important. Where you spend your effort should track that stated weighting, not your own sense of what should matter.

Rating methods: what the scores actually look like

FAR 15.305 lets an agency evaluate using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. In practice, on the technical factors, you will most often see one of two closely related systems:

• Adjectival ratings. Words on a defined scale, such as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable.
• Color ratings. The same scale expressed as colors, commonly Blue, Purple, Green, Yellow, and Red. The color is a visual stand-in for the adjective, so Blue and Outstanding mean the same thing.

On larger Department of Defense procurements, these rating tables are standardized. The DoD Source Selection Procedures prescribe the exact definitions for competitively negotiated FAR Part 15 acquisitions valued above $10 million, which is why the same rating words recur across very different DoD solicitations. Those definitions are built directly out of strengths, which tells you what the scale is really measuring:

• Blue, Outstanding. An exceptional approach with multiple strengths.
• Purple, Good. A thorough approach with at least one strength.
• Green, Acceptable. An adequate approach with no strengths and no deficiencies.
• Yellow, Marginal. An approach that does not adequately demonstrate it can meet the requirement.
• Red, Unacceptable. A proposal with one or more deficiencies, which makes it unawardable.

Read that ladder from the bottom up and the lesson is blunt. The gap between an award-worthy rating and a merely acceptable one is strengths, and the gap between acceptable and eliminated is deficiencies. Price or cost is the exception to all of this. It is never given an adjectival or color rating, because a dollar figure does not need a word to describe it.

Here is the part that trips up first-time proposal writers most. The rating word is a summary, not the thing itself. The Government Accountability Office has held repeatedly that adjectival ratings and point scores are useful guides but are not controlling. What controls is the written record underneath the rating: the specific strengths, weaknesses, and risks the evaluators documented. Two proposals can both be rated Good and lose or win based on what those Goods are made of. You are not writing to earn a word. You are writing to generate the findings that add up to it.

The vocabulary that decides award

FAR 15.305 requires that the relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting the evaluation be documented in the contract file. Those four terms, plus one more, are the actual currency of source selection. The three flaw terms are defined in FAR 15.001; strength comes from the source selection procedures, since the FAR names it without defining it. Learn all of them, because they are what your proposal is being converted into as an evaluator reads it.

• Strength. An aspect of your proposal that exceeds a requirement in a way that benefits the government, or that lowers risk. Strengths are what let an evaluator rate you above merely acceptable, and they are what a tradeoff decision is built on. Every strength you want credit for has to be visible and, ideally, proven.
• Weakness. A flaw in your proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.
• Significant weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases that risk. Significant weaknesses are among the things the government must raise with you if it opens discussions.
• Deficiency. A material failure to meet a requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases risk to an unacceptable level. A deficiency is the dangerous one. Left uncorrected, it can make your proposal unawardable.
• Risk. The evaluator’s judgment of the likelihood that your approach causes problems in performance. Risk is assessed alongside the merits, and a calm, specific treatment of it is one of the most effective things a technical writer can put on the page.

The practical takeaway is that you write to manufacture strengths and to leave no weaknesses or deficiencies for an evaluator to find. A claim with no proof does not become a strength. An unaddressed hard part of the work becomes a weakness by default. Your internal color team reviews exist to catch those weaknesses while you can still fix them, since they score your draft the way a real evaluator will. This is the same discipline described in the technical approach guide, viewed from the evaluator’s side of the table.

LPTA vs. best value tradeoff: the two bases for award

FAR 15.101 describes a best value continuum, and Section M tells you where on it your procurement sits. The two ends demand different proposals from the same team.

At one end is lowest price technically acceptable, or LPTA, under FAR 15.101-2. The evaluation is pass or fail against stated standards, and among the proposals rated acceptable, the lowest price wins. Under LPTA there is no such thing as a scored strength. Exceeding a requirement earns you nothing and can cost you, because effort spent being excellent is effort not spent being cheap. Your entire job is to be cleanly, unambiguously acceptable at the lowest defensible price. Note that the FAR directs agencies to avoid LPTA to the maximum extent practicable for information technology, cybersecurity, systems engineering, and other knowledge-based services (FAR 15.101-2(d)), so on technical services work it should be the exception.

At the other end is tradeoff, commonly called best value tradeoff, under FAR 15.101-1. Here the government may pay a premium for a better proposal, weighing the strengths of your approach against its higher cost. This is where strengths become the whole game. The source selection authority is deciding whether your specific advantages are worth their specific price difference over a cheaper competitor, and that decision is built entirely on the documented findings. Under tradeoff you write to give evaluators concrete, scoreable reasons to justify choosing you over someone who costs less.

Same solicitation structure, same technical solution, two opposite writing strategies. Confusing them is one of the most expensive mistakes in proposal work: pouring strengths into an LPTA bid where they cannot be counted, or submitting a thin, merely-acceptable proposal into a tradeoff where strengths were the only path to winning.

Subfactors, and where the weight really sits

Factors are usually divided into subfactors, and the subfactors are where the real scoring granularity lives. A Technical factor might break into Solution Approach, Transition, and Staffing, each rated on its own. Section M will tell you how the subfactors relate, whether they are equal, descending in importance, or rolled up in some stated way.

Two habits follow from this. First, map your content to the subfactor, not just the factor, so an evaluator scoring one subfactor finds everything they need in one place. Second, respect the stated importance. If Solution Approach is more important than Staffing, and you wrote three polished pages of staffing and one thin page of solution, you optimized for the wrong number. The compliance matrix is the tool that keeps this honest, because it forces every requirement to a location and lets you see where your effort actually landed.

What this means before you write a word

• Read Section M first, then Section L. M tells you what is scored. Only then does L tell you how to package it.
• Find the basis for award. LPTA or tradeoff is the single fact that determines whether strengths are worth writing at all.
• Write toward strengths and against weaknesses. Every claim carried to a proven benefit is a candidate strength. Every hard requirement you skate past is a weakness waiting to be logged.
• Match your effort to the stated weighting. Heaviest factors and subfactors get the most and best content. Trivial ones get clean compliance and nothing more.
• Assume a skeptical, time-pressed reader. The evaluator is converting your prose into findings on a scoresheet. Make that conversion easy, or lose the points to friction.

Common failure modes

• Writing to impress on an LPTA buy. Strengths that cannot be scored are wasted pages, and gold-plating can even read as risk.
• Submitting merely-acceptable content into a tradeoff. If the government can pay more for better and you gave them no better, you handed the award to whoever did.
• Chasing the rating word instead of the findings. “We need a Blue” is the wrong goal. The strengths that produce a Blue are the goal.
• Ignoring the stated importance of factors. Effort spread evenly across unevenly weighted factors is effort misallocated.
• Leaving hard requirements unaddressed. Silence on a difficult requirement does not read as neutral. It reads as a weakness, or worse, a deficiency.

The one-line takeaway

The government scores you only on the factors it disclosed, using ratings that are just summaries of documented strengths and weaknesses, and it makes the award either on lowest acceptable price or on a tradeoff that pays for strengths. Find which one applies, then write to be scored accordingly. Everything else in the proposal serves that.

The Proposal Stack is a newsletter for technical GovCon professionals who get pulled into proposal work and want to contribute well without becoming full-time proposal writers. The guides here decode the vocabulary. The newsletter covers how this plays out in practice, issue by issue. Subscribe here.