3.6: Grading Rubric – Chapter 3- Procurement and Solicitation Plan
- Page ID
- 53807
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)
\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)
\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)
\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)
\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)
\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)
\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)
\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)
\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)
\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)
\(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)
\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)
\(\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left< #1 \right|}\)
\(\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2} \right| \left. #2 \vphantom{#1} \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\braopket}[3]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2}\vphantom{#3} \right| #2 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#3} \left| #3 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#2} \right>}\)
\(\newcommand{\qmvec}[1]{\mathbf{\vec{#1}}}\)
\(\newcommand{\op}[1]{\hat{\mathbf{#1}}}\)
\(\newcommand{\expect}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}\)
\(\newcommand{\dfn}[1]{\emph{\textbf{#1}}}\)
Milestone 2: From Outsourcing Strategy to Vendor Selection
Total Points: 100
This rubric evaluates your ability to translate an approved outsourcing strategy into a complete, executable, and professionally governed Procurement and Solicitation Plan.
Introduction (Purpose, Scope, Audience, Inputs)
10 points
| Performance Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent (9–10) | Clearly articulates purpose, scope boundaries, intended audience, and inputs. Reads like a real procurement document. |
| Satisfactory (7–8) | Covers all required elements but lacks precision or professional tone in places. |
| Needs Improvement (5–6) | Missing one element or unclear boundaries. |
| Unsatisfactory (0–4) | Introduction is vague, incomplete, or missing key elements. |
Procurement Strategy
15 points
| Performance Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent (14–15) | Clearly explains why outsourcing is being pursued, defines procurement objectives, links procurement decisions to service delivery outcomes, and defines success beyond cost. |
| Satisfactory (11–13) | Strategy is sound but weakly connected to delivery or risk management. |
| Needs Improvement (8–10) | Strategy repeats outsourcing plan without procurement focus or lacks success measures. |
| Unsatisfactory (0–7) | Procurement strategy is unclear, generic, or missing. |
Project Scope Identification for Outsourcing
10 points
| Performance Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent (9–10) | Clearly defines outsourced scope, in-house responsibilities, milestones, and boundaries. Eliminates ambiguity. |
| Satisfactory (7–8) | Scope defined but boundaries or rationale are partially unclear. |
| Needs Improvement (5–6) | Scope is vague or lacks justification. |
| Unsatisfactory (0–4) | Scope is poorly defined or missing. |
Procurement and Solicitation Process (End-to-End)
25 points
| Performance Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent (23–25) | Fully documents all procurement steps (requirements, SOW, RFP, evaluation, negotiation, execution, monitoring, close-out). Links steps to SDLC, outputs, roles, and risks. |
| Satisfactory (19–22) | All steps included but some lack depth or risk awareness. |
| Needs Improvement (14–18) | Missing detail in multiple steps or weak linkage to execution. |
| Unsatisfactory (0–13) | Process is incomplete, disorganized, or unrealistic. |
Vendor Selection and Evaluation Approach
10 points
| Performance Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent (9–10) | Uses clear evaluation criteria, weighting, collaboration model, and defensible selection logic. |
| Satisfactory (7–8) | Evaluation approach present but lacks rigor or clarity. |
| Needs Improvement (5–6) | Criteria vague or scoring logic weak. |
| Unsatisfactory (0–4) | Vendor selection approach unclear or missing. |
Contract Management, Monitoring, and Governance
15 points
| Performance Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent (14–15) | Clearly defines how risks are tracked, issues escalated, performance managed, corrective actions enforced, and governance applied. PMBOK-aligned. |
| Satisfactory (11–13) | Governance described but lacks enforcement detail or clarity. |
| Needs Improvement (8–10) | Monitoring is superficial or passive. |
| Unsatisfactory (0–7) | Contract governance largely missing or unrealistic. |
Project and Contract Close-Out
5 points
| Performance Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent (5) | Close-out process is complete, structured, and aligned to PMBOK Closing processes. |
| Satisfactory (4) | Close-out included but lacks depth. |
| Needs Improvement (3) | Close-out vague or incomplete. |
| Unsatisfactory (0–2) | Close-out missing or incorrect. |
Professionalism, Organization, and Clarity
10 points
| Performance Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent (9–10) | Document is well-organized, clearly written, professionally formatted, and cohesive. |
| Satisfactory (7–8) | Generally clear with minor organization or clarity issues. |
| Needs Improvement (5–6) | Difficult to follow or inconsistently formatted. |
| Unsatisfactory (0–4) | Disorganized, unclear, or unprofessional. |
Final Notes for Students
This milestone is evaluated as a professional procurement document, not an academic essay. Clarity, realism, and execution-readiness matter.
If your plan could:
- Be approved by leadership
- Be executed by procurement staff
- Survive audit or legal review
…then you are meeting the intent of this milestone.