Score a draft

ProposalPulse reads the full document and scores it the way an SSEB evaluator would — rubric, discriminators, pWin, and a Go/No-Bid recommendation.

Drop your draft (PDF or DOCX)

Up to 50 MB · parsed in full, not by metadata

VA_EHRM_Technical_Vol_Draft_v3.docx · 847 KB

Document type

Your email

SOW / PWS

3 free assessments per email · $19.99 after that · scorecard emailed to you

Scoring in progress

ProposalPulse evaluates the draft against the federal rubric and drafts evaluator-grade comments.

Typically 60–90 seconds · accelerated here for the walkthrough

Parsing document structure

Applying the SSEB-aligned rubric

Identifying discriminators and win theme

Computing pWin and Go/No-Bid recommendation

Scorecard

Results are emailed to you. Gold Team rewrite arrives by email in 1–2 minutes.

Probability of win (pWin)

41%

Recommendation

Submit with revisions

2 marginal criteria drive the recommendation.

Technical volume

VA_EHRM_Technical_Vol_Draft_v3.docx

Rubric · SSEB consensus rating

Acceptable

Vehicle & acquisition fit

Maps cleanly to T4NG2 scope; IDIQ task order logic consistent with §L.

Evaluator testDoes the bid match the vehicle, task-order type, and acquisition strategy spelled out in §L/M?

Rationale§1.1 maps to T4NG2 scope element 3. §1.3 correctly identifies TO as FFP with performance incentives. Consistent with §L.3(b).

Recommended fixNo change required. Consider adding explicit §L reference for SSEB traceability.

Marginal

Cost / price credibility

Rate assumptions exceed SCA floors by 12% without BoE support.

Evaluator testWould a DCAA-trained cost analyst find the Basis of Estimate defensible?

RationaleLabor mix in Cost Volume §2.1 shows rates 8–14% above apparent floor without productivity justification. BoE in §2.4 references a prior effort but doesn't attach the actuals.

Recommended fixAppend BoE exhibits citing actual hours/rates from the referenced prior effort. If rates reflect a retention premium, state it explicitly and tie to risk narrative.

Strong

Funding ask & scope alignment

Scope stays within the TO ceiling; option years priced with clear burn logic.

Acceptable

Win theme coherence

Primary theme set in §1 doesn't thread through §4–7; technical sections default to feature language.

Marginal

Discriminator clarity

Discriminators read as features. Evaluator won't recall them in consensus.

Acceptable

Evidence quality

Past-performance citations are specific; clinical-outcome claims in §3.2 lack sourcing.

Discriminator assessment

Win-theme coherence: 62 / 100

1Only bidder with FedRAMP High ATO for a Tier-3 analytics stack on the existing task-order vehicle.
224-month track record on predecessor vehicle (CIO-SP3), including two in-scope mods executed without cure notices.
3Delivery team includes three former VA CIO office staff with current clearances.

Gold Team rewrite queued

A capture strategist persona rewrites the 9 weakest sections, drafts an executive summary, and reports a pWin delta. Arrives at anita@example.gov in 1–2 minutes.

Check email for review