5.6: Instructor Notes and Grading Rubric

Milestone Purpose (Instructor Perspective)

In Milestone 4, students move from execution planning to financial ownership. The milestone asks them to create a full project budget by:

• Translating effort and structure into labor cost
• Researching and estimating non-labor expenses
• Structuring costs into an organized funding request
• Applying contingency to reflect uncertainty and risk
• Crafting a funding narrative that supports decision-making

This is the first milestone where students must show:

• Budget thinking based on execution logic (not “ballparking”)
• Transparency and traceability of every dollar
• The ability to communicate cost as a story—not just a spreadsheet

Instructor Review Focus

As you evaluate submissions, consider:

Cost Completeness and Categorization

• Have they captured all relevant cost-driving elements?
• Are the items categorized logically (labor vs. non-labor, recurring vs. one-time)?
• Do they reflect the scope, sequencing, and structure from Milestones 2 and 3?

Estimation Logic and Transparency

• Are labor estimates traceable to Milestone 3 effort figures?
• Are non-labor items priced using sources, quantity logic, or clear assumptions?
• Do totals add up? Are they defensible?

Structure and Communication

• Is the budget organized in a clear, stakeholder-facing format?
• Does the contingency reflect project-specific risk—not a padded guess?
• Is the funding narrative professional and persuasive?

Grading Rubric (Total: 100 Points)

Grading Rubric

Section	Criteria	Points
1. Cost Inputs and Categorization	Includes all labor and non-labor items; uses appropriate classifications (e.g., one-time, recurring, fixed, variable, direct/indirect)	20 pts
2. Labor Cost Estimation	Uses effort estimates; correct rate logic; shows cost by task/role/phase; assumptions documented	20 pts
3. Non-Labor Cost Estimation	Itemized correctly; priced using logic or benchmark; assumptions cited; totals accurate	20 pts
4. Budget Roll-Up and Structure	Subtotals are presented cleanly; categories are logical; contingency is separated and labeled; total budget is clear	20 pts
5. Contingency & Funding Narrative	Justifies buffer with identified risks; summary is written professionally; explains value of investment	15 pts
Presentation & Professionalism	Document is polished, well-organized, and consistent with prior milestones	5 pts

Grading Scale

Grading Scale

Score Range	Grade	Description
90–100	A	Highly professional budget with traceable math, sound judgment, and clear formatting
80–89	B	Strong submission with solid structure; may include minor errors, unclear narrative, or formatting issues
70–79	C	Basic completeness; lacks structure, logic clarity, or full alignment with scope
60–69	D	Budget is incomplete, vague, or based on incorrect application of effort/duration estimates
Below 60	F	Budget is not usable or reviewable; major sections missing or illogical

Instructor Feedback Prompts

Use these when writing feedback or coaching comments:

• “Consider tying this cost item more clearly to your WBS or role-based effort.”
• “Where did this price come from? Can you cite or explain the source?”
• “Nice breakdown—could you clarify whether this cost is recurring or one-time?”
• “Strong structure—next step might be adding a pie chart or summary page for decision-makers.”
• “Narrative is clear, but what value does this funding unlock?”

Instructor Tips (For In-Class or Review Sessions)

• Use sample budgets (good, better, best) to show formatting and logic in action
• Have students walk through their contingency logic to surface hidden risk
• Encourage peer review on estimation math before submission
• Use narrative sharing in class—"How did you justify your funding request?"