Data store · TL-01

HTRO Score Sheet Grader

Grade any self-scoring sheet before the government does. Map the solicitation once, index your evidence once, and see what you claim versus what your documents can actually defend, with the exact gap on every line.

More construction vehicles are being awarded to the highest technically rated offerors on a self-scoring sheet. You score yourself, attach the proof, and after closing the government validates every point. A point you cannot document is a point you do not keep.

This workbook grades your score sheet the way a validator would. Put each scored element on one tab: points, dollar floors, recency windows, completion rules, CPARS rating thresholds, NAICS, zone, role, delivery method, facility type. Enter your projects and your evidence, claim your points, and every claim comes back defensible or not, with the reason.

It comes with an evidence locker: a folder structure and naming convention for the award, the mods, the PWS, the CPARS and PPQs, the PLA, the bonding letter and the SAM record, so the proof for every point is in one place before the proposal is due.

A self-assessment aid, provided as is. You are responsible for reading the solicitation and every amendment and for checking all work. We make no guarantee that any mapping, formula or score is accurate and take no responsibility for any proposal, evaluation or award outcome.

Who it's for

Construction and A/E firms, capture managers and proposal consultants preparing a self-scored submission for a multiple-award vehicle.

How customers use it

Use case 1

Catch the point that will not survive validation

A general contractor claims five qualifying projects. The grader flags one: the CPARS on file is an interim, and the sheet requires a final evaluation. Six points depend on that project. They request the final CPARS three months before closing instead of losing the points after it.

Fix before closing

Use case 2

Pick the right projects to submit

Two of a firm's big jobs finished just outside the recency window. The grader shows it on day one, and the capture team swaps in a smaller, more recent project that scores on every element.

Outside the window

Use case 3

Build the document request list

Filter the evidence index to Requested and Missing and you have the list of letters, CPARS and certifications to chase this week, by project.

Chase these

What a row looks like

Element	Project	Evidence	Recency	Conditions	Claimed	Defensible	Gap / action
QP eligibility	P001	Yes	Yes	Yes	1	1	Defensible
QP recency (3 yr)	P002	Yes	No	n/a	1	0	Outside the 3-year recency window
QP federal prime	P004	Yes	n/a	No	1	0	Customer type must be Federal (is State)

Rows from the worked example, a fictional contractor. Every claim is tested against its evidence, thresholds and conditions, and the gap is written out in plain words.

Columns

Criterion ID · Max points · Points per claim · Max claims · Evidence required · Min total value · Min annual value · Min months · Recency window · Must be complete · Gate criterion · SB only · Portfolio metric · Conditions (field, operator, value) · Claimed points · Defensible points · Gap / action