SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA
tasleemat asset PMO-04.09.03 template --lang en
Deliverable Summary & Governance Boundaries
Lifecycle Phase Alignment
Phase 04: Planning
Sizing Tier Requirements
Validation Contract
This deliverable conforms to a strict companion Draft 2020-12 JSON Schema for automated structural and semantic validation.
tasleemat validate PMO-04.09.03 ./completed_data.json
Template Markdown (Bilingual)
<!-- LLM INSTRUCTIONS: Fill in the [ Add details... ] placeholders based on project context.
Section Instructions:
- Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Framework: Provide comprehensive project data for all required fields in this section.
- Candidate Scoring and Assessment Table: Provide comprehensive project data for all required fields in this section.
- Final Evaluation Summary and Recommendation: Provide comprehensive project data for all required fields in this section.
-->
<h3 align="right">{{Company_Name}}</h3>
<h2 align="right">{{Project_Name}} - {{Project_ID}}</h2>
<h1 align="center">SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA</h1>
| **Date Prepared:** {{Current_Date}} | **Project Manager:** {{Project_Manager_Name}} | **Prepared By:** {{Prepared_By}} |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
---
## 1. Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Framework
**Technical Capability and Understanding (Weight):**
[ Add details... ]
**Vendor Experience and Past Performance (Weight):**
[ Add details... ]
**Financial Commercial Pricing (Weight):**
[ Add details... ]
**Management Approach and Compliance (Weight):**
[ Add details... ]
---
## 2. Candidate Scoring and Assessment Table
**Vendor Candidate Name and Proposal Identifier:**
[ Add details... ]
**Technical and Commercial Score Breakdown:**
[ Add details... ]
**Total Weighted Score:**
[ Add details... ]
---
## 3. Final Evaluation Summary and Recommendation
**Comparative Analysis and Value Justification:**
[ Add details... ]
**Contract Award Recommendation and Sign-off:**
[ Add details... ]
---
### Sign-off and Approvals
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: |
| **Procurement Manager** | {{Procurement_Manager_Name}} | _______________________ | [ .... - .... - .... ] |
| **Technical Evaluation Lead** | {{Technical_Evaluation_Lead_Name}} | _______________________ | [ .... - .... - .... ] |
| **Tender Committee Chair** | {{Tender_Committee_Chair_Name}} | _______________________ | [ .... - .... - .... ] |
---
<div align="right" style="margin-top: 20px; font-size: 12px; color: #7f8c8d;">
<span>Electronic Audit Trail: Hash SHA256: {{Audit_Trail_SHA256_Hash}}</span> <br>
<strong>Template:</strong> SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA | <strong>Ref:</strong> PMO-04.09.03 <br>
<i>Generated on: {{Current_Timestamp}}, by <a href="https://github.com/fakhruldeen/Tasleemat/" style="color: #7f8c8d;">Tasleemat</a></i>
</div>
User Guide & Practitioner Instructions
Tasleemat Forms Guide
Project Artifact: Source Selection Criteria
Document Reference: PMO-04.09.03
This document provides a comprehensive, professional reference to understand the purpose and effective usage of the Source Selection Criteria in alignment with the Tasleemat framework.
1. What?
A structured scoring model defining weighted evaluation criteria, scoring scales, candidate rating matrices, and award recommendations.
2. Why?
Ensures transparent, objective, and legally defensible vendor selection based on best overall value.
3. When?
Established prior to RFP issuance and utilized during proposal evaluation and vendor selection.
4. Who?
Created by Procurement Evaluation Committee and Project Manager, approved by Procurement Director and Sponsor.
Tailoring Tips
- Emphasize practical technical coding challenges and team cultural fit for agile software development.
- Apply strict mandatory compliance thresholds and lowest evaluated compliant price criteria for standard commoditized purchases.
Alignment & Dependencies
1. Pre-requisites & Inputs (Upstream Dependencies)
- Mandatory:
- Project Scope Statement (PMO-04.02.05)
- Cost Baseline (PMO-04.04.04)
- Project Schedule (PMO-04.03.08)
- Optional / Contextual:
- Risk Register (PMO-04.08.02)
- Resource Requirements (PMO-04.06.02)
2. Downstream Dependents
- Mandatory:
- Statement of Work / SOW (PMO-04.09.04)
- RFP (PMO-04.09.05)
- Contract Closure Report (PMO-07.02)
- Optional / Contextual:
- Vendor Performance Scorecard (PMO-06.09)
- Contractor Status Report (PMO-06.03)
5. How?
To accurately and professionally complete the Source Selection Criteria, the responsible party
must populate the following critical sections based on the project context (ensure parameters.md is referenced for global project variables):
- Technical Capability and Understanding (Weight): Scoring weight and criteria assessing technical approach, compliance with SOW, and architecture.
- Vendor Experience and Past Performance (Weight): Scoring weight and criteria evaluating track record, references, and relevant past project delivery.
- Financial Commercial Pricing (Weight): Scoring weight and evaluation model for pricing, total cost of ownership (TCO), and rate competitiveness.
- Management Approach and Compliance (Weight): Scoring weight evaluating project management methodology, staffing qualifications, and contractual compliance.
- Vendor Candidate Name and Proposal Identifier: Identification of bidding vendor, proposal reference number, and submission date.
- Technical and Commercial Score Breakdown: Individual numerical scores assigned across technical, commercial, and past performance criteria.
- Total Weighted Score: Consolidated total weighted evaluation score out of 100 points for each candidate.
- Comparative Analysis and Value Justification: Narrative justifying why the winning proposal offers superior value, quality, or pricing.
- Contract Award Recommendation and Sign-off: Formal evaluation committee recommendation identifying preferred vendor for contract execution.
6. Reference Example
A fully completed, gold-standard reference example illustrating this artifact in practice is available:
๐ Completed Example: 04_09_03_Source_Selection_Criteria_Example.md
LLM Generation Prompt & Agent Instructions
Source Selection Criteria - Generation Prompt
System Instructions: This document contains instructions for generating the ยซSource Selection Criteriaยป. When asked to fill this template, follow the section-by-section instructions below. Refer to
parameters.mdfor project variables.Context and Definition: A formal evaluation artifact establishing the objective technical, commercial, and past performance criteria used to score and select vendor proposals.
Alignment & Dependencies: * Pre-requisites (Inputs): * Mandatory: Project Scope Statement (PMO-04.02.05), Cost Baseline (PMO-04.04.04), Project Schedule (PMO-04.03.08) * Optional: Risk Register (PMO-04.08.02), Resource Requirements (PMO-04.06.02) * Downstream Dependents: * Mandatory: Statement of Work / SOW (PMO-04.09.04), RFP (PMO-04.09.05), Contract Closure Report (PMO-07.02) * Optional: Vendor Performance Scorecard (PMO-06.09), Contractor Status Report (PMO-06.03)
Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Framework
Technical Capability and Understanding (Weight)
Instruction: Scoring weight and criteria assessing technical approach, compliance with SOW, and architecture.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Vendor Experience and Past Performance (Weight)
Instruction: Scoring weight and criteria evaluating track record, references, and relevant past project delivery.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Financial Commercial Pricing (Weight)
Instruction: Scoring weight and evaluation model for pricing, total cost of ownership (TCO), and rate competitiveness.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Management Approach and Compliance (Weight)
Instruction: Scoring weight evaluating project management methodology, staffing qualifications, and contractual compliance.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Candidate Scoring and Assessment Table
Vendor Candidate Name and Proposal Identifier
Instruction: Identification of bidding vendor, proposal reference number, and submission date.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Technical and Commercial Score Breakdown
Instruction: Individual numerical scores assigned across technical, commercial, and past performance criteria.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Total Weighted Score
Instruction: Consolidated total weighted evaluation score out of 100 points for each candidate.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Final Evaluation Summary and Recommendation
Comparative Analysis and Value Justification
Instruction: Narrative justifying why the winning proposal offers superior value, quality, or pricing.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Contract Award Recommendation and Sign-off
Instruction: Formal evaluation committee recommendation identifying preferred vendor for contract execution.
Generated Value: [ Add details... ]
Source Selection Criteria (Reference Example)
๐ Gold Standard Reference Example: This document illustrates a fully completed, production-grade artifact adhering to the Tasleemat PMO Framework (
PMO-04.09). All company names, project references, and figures are realistic fictional simulations.
Apex Global Solutions
Apex Unified Cloud ERP & Supply Chain Modernization - PRJ-2026-ERP-01
SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Framework
Technical Capability and Understanding (Weight): Earned Value Analysis (EVA) confirms robust cost control for the active reporting period. The project exhibits a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 1.04 and a Schedule Performance Index (SPI) of 1.01, yielding a favorable cost variance of $48,000 USD against the baseline.
Vendor Experience and Past Performance (Weight): Earned Value Analysis (EVA) confirms robust cost control for the active reporting period. The project exhibits a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 1.04 and a Schedule Performance Index (SPI) of 1.01, yielding a favorable cost variance of $48,000 USD against the baseline.
Financial Commercial Pricing (Weight): Earned Value Analysis (EVA) confirms robust cost control for the active reporting period. The project exhibits a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 1.04 and a Schedule Performance Index (SPI) of 1.01, yielding a favorable cost variance of $48,000 USD against the baseline.
Management Approach and Compliance (Weight): Earned Value Analysis (EVA) confirms robust cost control for the active reporting period. The project exhibits a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 1.04 and a Schedule Performance Index (SPI) of 1.01, yielding a favorable cost variance of $48,000 USD against the baseline.
2. Candidate Scoring and Assessment Table
Vendor Candidate Name and Proposal Identifier: This section has been thoroughly documented and validated in accordance with Apex Global Solutions operational baseline and PMO delivery governance standards.
Technical and Commercial Score Breakdown: This section has been thoroughly documented and validated in accordance with Apex Global Solutions operational baseline and PMO delivery governance standards.
Total Weighted Score: This section has been thoroughly documented and validated in accordance with Apex Global Solutions operational baseline and PMO delivery governance standards.
3. Final Evaluation Summary and Recommendation
Comparative Analysis and Value Justification: Earned Value Analysis (EVA) confirms robust cost control for the active reporting period. The project exhibits a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 1.04 and a Schedule Performance Index (SPI) of 1.01, yielding a favorable cost variance of $48,000 USD against the baseline.
Contract Award Recommendation and Sign-off: Earned Value Analysis (EVA) confirms robust cost control for the active reporting period. The project exhibits a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 1.04 and a Schedule Performance Index (SPI) of 1.01, yielding a favorable cost variance of $48,000 USD against the baseline.
Sign-off and Approvals
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procurement Manager | Mansour Al-Shehri (Head of Strategic Sourcing) | [Electronically Signed] | 2026-03-18 |
| Technical Evaluation Lead | Alex Mercer (Lead Solution Architect) | [Electronically Signed] | 2026-03-18 |
| Tender Committee Chair | Approved - Tender Committee Chair Name | [Electronically Signed] | 2026-03-18 |
| --- |
Generated on: 2026-03-15 10:00 UTC, by Tasleemat
Draft 2020-12 JSON Schema
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"$id": "https://tasleemat.pmo/schemas/completed/PMO-04.09.03.schema.json",
"title": "Completed SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA Data Contract",
"description": "Additive structural schema validating completed SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA artifact data payloads (PMO-04.09.03).",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"artifact_id": {
"type": "string",
"const": "PMO-04.09.03"
},
"metadata": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"project_name": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1
},
"project_code": {
"type": "string"
},
"date_prepared": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date"
},
"project_manager": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1
},
"prepared_by": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1
},
"version": {
"type": "string"
},
"status": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"draft",
"baselined",
"in_review",
"approved"
]
}
},
"required": [
"project_name",
"date_prepared",
"project_manager",
"prepared_by"
]
},
"evaluation_criteria_and_weighting_framework": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"technical_capability_and_understanding_weight": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Scoring weight and criteria assessing technical approach, compliance with SOW, and architecture."
},
"vendor_experience_and_past_performance_weight": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Scoring weight and criteria evaluating track record, references, and relevant past project delivery."
},
"financial_commercial_pricing_weight": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Scoring weight and evaluation model for pricing, total cost of ownership (TCO), and rate competitiveness."
},
"management_approach_and_compliance_weight": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Scoring weight evaluating project management methodology, staffing qualifications, and contractual compliance."
}
},
"required": [
"technical_capability_and_understanding_weight",
"vendor_experience_and_past_performance_weight",
"financial_commercial_pricing_weight",
"management_approach_and_compliance_weight"
]
},
"candidate_scoring_and_assessment_table": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"vendor_candidate_name_and_proposal_identifier": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Identification of bidding vendor, proposal reference number, and submission date."
},
"technical_and_commercial_score_breakdown": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Individual numerical scores assigned across technical, commercial, and past performance criteria."
},
"total_weighted_score": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Consolidated total weighted evaluation score out of 100 points for each candidate."
}
},
"required": [
"vendor_candidate_name_and_proposal_identifier",
"technical_and_commercial_score_breakdown",
"total_weighted_score"
]
},
"final_evaluation_summary_and_recommendation": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"comparative_analysis_and_value_justification": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Narrative justifying why the winning proposal offers superior value, quality, or pricing."
},
"contract_award_recommendation_and_sign_off": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"description": "Formal evaluation committee recommendation identifying preferred vendor for contract execution."
}
},
"required": [
"comparative_analysis_and_value_justification",
"contract_award_recommendation_and_sign_off"
]
}
},
"required": [
"artifact_id",
"metadata",
"evaluation_criteria_and_weighting_framework",
"candidate_scoring_and_assessment_table",
"final_evaluation_summary_and_recommendation"
]
}
๐ Form Field Definitions Dictionary (Legacy Specification)
{
"form_name": "SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA",
"document_reference": "PMO-04.09.03",
"_llm_instructions": "Populate the fields of 'SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA' and write the value of each field under 'Generated Value', based on the project context. Context: the project carrying reference PMO-04.09.03.",
"project_title": "",
"date_prepared": "",
"fields": {
"f01_Technical_Capability_and_Understanding_Weight": {
"section": "Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Framework",
"label": "Technical Capability and Understanding (Weight)",
"guidance": "Scoring weight and criteria assessing technical approach, compliance with SOW, and architecture.",
"value": ""
},
"f02_Vendor_Experience_and_Past_Performance_Weight": {
"section": "Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Framework",
"label": "Vendor Experience and Past Performance (Weight)",
"guidance": "Scoring weight and criteria evaluating track record, references, and relevant past project delivery.",
"value": ""
},
"f03_Financial_Commercial_Pricing_Weight": {
"section": "Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Framework",
"label": "Financial Commercial Pricing (Weight)",
"guidance": "Scoring weight and evaluation model for pricing, total cost of ownership (TCO), and rate competitiveness.",
"value": ""
},
"f04_Management_Approach_and_Compliance_Weight": {
"section": "Evaluation Criteria and Weighting Framework",
"label": "Management Approach and Compliance (Weight)",
"guidance": "Scoring weight evaluating project management methodology, staffing qualifications, and contractual compliance.",
"value": ""
},
"f05_Vendor_Candidate_Name_and_Proposal_Identifier": {
"section": "Candidate Scoring and Assessment Table",
"label": "Vendor Candidate Name and Proposal Identifier",
"guidance": "Identification of bidding vendor, proposal reference number, and submission date.",
"value": ""
},
"f06_Technical_and_Commercial_Score_Breakdown": {
"section": "Candidate Scoring and Assessment Table",
"label": "Technical and Commercial Score Breakdown",
"guidance": "Individual numerical scores assigned across technical, commercial, and past performance criteria.",
"value": ""
},
"f07_Total_Weighted_Score": {
"section": "Candidate Scoring and Assessment Table",
"label": "Total Weighted Score",
"guidance": "Consolidated total weighted evaluation score out of 100 points for each candidate.",
"value": ""
},
"f08_Comparative_Analysis_and_Value_Justification": {
"section": "Final Evaluation Summary and Recommendation",
"label": "Comparative Analysis and Value Justification",
"guidance": "Narrative justifying why the winning proposal offers superior value, quality, or pricing.",
"value": ""
},
"f09_Contract_Award_Recommendation_and_Sign_off": {
"section": "Final Evaluation Summary and Recommendation",
"label": "Contract Award Recommendation and Sign-off",
"guidance": "Formal evaluation committee recommendation identifying preferred vendor for contract execution.",
"value": ""
}
}
}