arckit-cli 6.1.1__py3-none-any.whl

arckit_cli-6.1.1.data/data/share/arckit/.arckit/templates/evaluation-criteria-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,719 @@
+# Vendor Evaluation Criteria: [PROJECT_NAME]
+
+> **Template Origin**: Official | **ArcKit Version**: [VERSION] | **Command**: `/arckit:evaluate`
+
+## Document Control
+
+<!-- DOC-CONTROL-HEADER -->
+<!-- Resolved at command-execution time to _partials/document-control-uk.md or _partials/document-control-uae.md based on plugin userConfig classification_scheme + governance_framework. See _partials/RENDERING.md (when present). -->
+
+## Revision History
+
+| Version | Date | Author | Changes | Approved By | Approval Date |
+|---------|------|--------|---------|-------------|---------------|
+| [VERSION] | [DATE] | ArcKit AI | Initial creation from `/arckit.[COMMAND]` command | [PENDING] | [PENDING] |
+
+## Document Purpose
+
+[Brief description of what this document is for and how it will be used]
+
+---
+
+## 1. Evaluation Overview
+
+### 1.1 Purpose
+
+This document defines the criteria, scoring methodology, and process for evaluating vendor proposals for [PROJECT_NAME]. The goal is to select the vendor that provides the best value considering technical capability, experience, cost, and cultural fit.
+
+### 1.2 Evaluation Principles
+
+- **Objective**: Criteria are measurable and consistently applied
+- **Transparent**: Vendors understand how they will be evaluated
+- **Fair**: All vendors evaluated against same criteria
+- **Documented**: Scores and rationale captured for auditability
+- **Value-Based**: Best value, not necessarily lowest cost
+
+### 1.3 Evaluation Team
+
+| Name | Role | Department | Evaluation Focus |
+|------|------|------------|------------------|
+| [Name] | Evaluation Lead | Procurement | Process orchestration, final scoring |
+| [Name] | Technical Evaluator | Enterprise Architecture | Technical solution, architecture |
+| [Name] | Technical Evaluator | Security | Security and compliance |
+| [Name] | Technical Evaluator | Domain Architecture | Domain fit, integration |
+| [Name] | Business Evaluator | Product/Business | Requirements understanding, business value |
+| [Name] | Business Evaluator | Finance | Cost evaluation, budget alignment |
+| [Name] | Observer (non-voting) | Legal | Contract terms review |
+
+### 1.4 Conflict of Interest
+
+All evaluators must disclose any conflicts of interest with vendors:
+
+- [ ] Personal relationships with vendor employees
+- [ ] Financial interests in vendor companies
+- [ ] Prior employment with vendor (within 2 years)
+- [ ] Concurrent consulting arrangements
+
+Evaluators with conflicts must recuse themselves from evaluation of that vendor.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Evaluation Process
+
+### 2.1 Process Flow
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart TD
+    P1[1. Proposals Received<br/>Due Date] --> P2[2. Mandatory Qualifications Check<br/>Pass/Fail]
+    P2 -->|Qualified vendors only| P3[3. Individual Technical Scoring<br/>Blind to Cost]
+    P3 --> P4[4. Consensus Technical<br/>Scoring Meeting]
+    P4 --> P5[5. Shortlist Top 3-5 Vendors]
+    P5 --> P6[6. Cost Proposals Opened<br/>Shortlisted only]
+    P6 --> P7[7. Cost Scoring]
+    P7 --> P8[8. Combined Technical +<br/>Cost Scoring]
+    P8 --> P9[9. Vendor Presentations & Q&A]
+    P9 --> P10[10. Reference Checks]
+    P10 --> P11[11. Final Scoring & Selection]
+    P11 --> P12[12. Selection Approval & Award]
+
+    style P2 fill:#FFE4B5
+    style P5 fill:#FFE4B5
+    style P12 fill:#C8E6C9
+```
+
+### 2.2 Timeline
+
+| Phase | Duration | Deadline | Responsible |
+|-------|----------|----------|-------------|
+| Proposals Due | - | [DATE] | Vendors |
+| Mandatory Qualifications Check | 2 days | [DATE] | Procurement |
+| Individual Technical Scoring | 1 week | [DATE] | All evaluators |
+| Consensus Meeting | 1 day | [DATE] | Evaluation committee |
+| Shortlist | 1 day | [DATE] | Evaluation lead |
+| Cost Evaluation | 2 days | [DATE] | Finance |
+| Vendor Presentations | 1 week | [DATE RANGE] | Shortlisted vendors |
+| Reference Checks | 1 week | [DATE RANGE] | Evaluation team |
+| Final Scoring | 2 days | [DATE] | Evaluation committee |
+| Selection Decision | 1 day | [DATE] | Executive sponsor |
+| Vendor Notification | 1 day | [DATE] | Procurement |
+
+---
+
+## 3. Mandatory Qualifications (Pass/Fail)
+
+Before scoring, vendors must meet ALL mandatory qualifications. Failure on any item results in disqualification.
+
+### 3.1 Mandatory Qualification Checklist
+
+| ID | Qualification | Pass/Fail | Notes |
+|----|---------------|-----------|-------|
+| **MQ-1** | Minimum [5] years of experience | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-2** | At least [3] relevant reference projects | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-3** | Required certifications present on team | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-4** | Company security compliance (SOC 2/ISO 27001) | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-5** | Financial stability evidence provided | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-6** | Proposal submitted on time | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-7** | Proposal follows required format | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-8** | All required sections completed | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-9** | Cost proposal separate from technical | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+| **MQ-10** | Key personnel resumes included | [ ] Pass [ ] Fail | |
+
+**Disqualification Procedure**:
+
+1. Evaluator identifies mandatory qualification failure
+2. Evaluation lead confirms failure
+3. Vendor notified of disqualification with specific reason
+4. Vendor has [48 hours] to provide clarification if failure was due to misunderstanding
+5. Final determination by evaluation lead
+
+---
+
+## 4. Technical Evaluation Criteria (100 Points)
+
+Technical proposals are scored **blind to cost** to ensure unbiased evaluation.
+
+### 4.1 Criteria Summary
+
+| Category | Weight | Max Points | Evaluator(s) |
+|----------|--------|------------|--------------|
+| **Technical Approach and Solution Design** | 35% | 35 | Technical evaluators |
+| **Project Approach and Methodology** | 20% | 20 | All evaluators |
+| **Team Qualifications and Experience** | 25% | 25 | Technical + business evaluators |
+| **Relevant Experience and References** | 15% | 15 | Business evaluators |
+| **Understanding of Requirements** | 5% | 5 | All evaluators |
+| **TOTAL** | **100%** | **100** | |
+
+---
+
+### 4.2 Category 1: Technical Approach and Solution Design (35 points)
+
+**Purpose**: Evaluate the proposed technical solution's quality, feasibility, and alignment with requirements and architecture principles.
+
+#### Subcriteria
+
+| Subcriterion | Points | Evaluation Questions |
+|--------------|--------|---------------------|
+| **1.1 Architecture Quality** | 10 | • Is the architecture well-designed, scalable, and maintainable?<br>• Does it follow modern best practices (microservices, cloud-native, etc.)?<br>• Are components loosely coupled with clear boundaries?<br>• Is the architecture aligned with our enterprise principles? |
+| **1.2 Technology Stack** | 8 | • Are technology choices appropriate for requirements?<br>• Do choices align with our approved stack or have good justification?<br>• Is the stack modern, supportable, with active community?<br>• Are there lock-in risks or vendor dependencies? |
+| **1.3 Scalability & Performance** | 7 | • Does solution meet performance requirements?<br>• Is horizontal scaling strategy credible?<br>• Are bottlenecks identified and addressed?<br>• Is performance testing approach sound? |
+| **1.4 Security & Compliance** | 6 | • Are security controls comprehensive and appropriate?<br>• Does solution meet compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, etc.)?<br>• Is threat model thoughtful and complete?<br>• Are security best practices followed (encryption, least privilege, etc.)? |
+| **1.5 Integration Approach** | 4 | • Is integration strategy with existing systems sound?<br>• Are integration patterns appropriate (API, event-driven, etc.)?<br>• Are integration risks identified and mitigated? |
+
+#### Scoring Rubric (Per Subcriterion)
+
+| Score | Description |
+|-------|-------------|
+| **Excellent (90-100%)** | Exceeds expectations; innovative; demonstrates deep expertise; minimal risks |
+| **Good (75-89%)** | Meets all expectations; sound approach; some minor concerns or areas for clarification |
+| **Adequate (60-74%)** | Meets most expectations; workable approach; some concerns or gaps requiring discussion |
+| **Weak (40-59%)** | Meets minimum expectations; significant concerns; substantial gaps or risks |
+| **Unacceptable (0-39%)** | Does not meet expectations; major flaws; unworkable approach |
+
+#### Scoring Template (per vendor)
+
+**Vendor Name**: _______________
+
+| Subcriterion | Max Points | Score | Justification |
+|--------------|------------|-------|---------------|
+| 1.1 Architecture Quality | 10 | ___ | |
+| 1.2 Technology Stack | 8 | ___ | |
+| 1.3 Scalability & Performance | 7 | ___ | |
+| 1.4 Security & Compliance | 6 | ___ | |
+| 1.5 Integration Approach | 4 | ___ | |
+| **Category 1 Total** | **35** | **___** | |
+
+---
+
+### 4.3 Category 2: Project Approach and Methodology (20 points)
+
+**Purpose**: Evaluate the vendor's approach to delivering the project, managing risks, and ensuring quality.
+
+#### Subcriteria
+
+| Subcriterion | Points | Evaluation Questions |
+|--------------|--------|---------------------|
+| **2.1 Development Methodology** | 5 | • Is the proposed methodology (Agile, SAFe, etc.) appropriate?<br>• Is sprint/iteration planning realistic?<br>• Are roles and ceremonies well-defined?<br>• How will vendor adapt to our processes? |
+| **2.2 Project Timeline & Phasing** | 5 | • Is timeline realistic given scope?<br>• Are phases logically sequenced?<br>• Are milestones meaningful and measurable?<br>• Is there buffer for risks/unknowns? |
+| **2.3 Risk Management** | 4 | • Are key risks identified proactively?<br>• Are mitigation strategies credible?<br>• Is risk monitoring process defined?<br>• Does vendor show awareness of project risks? |
+| **2.4 Quality Assurance** | 3 | • Is testing strategy comprehensive (unit, integration, UAT, performance)?<br>• Are QA resources adequate?<br>• Is test automation planned?<br>• Are quality gates defined? |
+| **2.5 Communication & Governance** | 3 | • Is communication plan clear (frequency, audiences, formats)?<br>• Are governance structures appropriate (steering, working teams)?<br>• Is escalation process defined?<br>• How will status be reported? |
+
+#### Scoring Template
+
+**Vendor Name**: _______________
+
+| Subcriterion | Max Points | Score | Justification |
+|--------------|------------|-------|---------------|
+| 2.1 Development Methodology | 5 | ___ | |
+| 2.2 Project Timeline & Phasing | 5 | ___ | |
+| 2.3 Risk Management | 4 | ___ | |
+| 2.4 Quality Assurance | 3 | ___ | |
+| 2.5 Communication & Governance | 3 | ___ | |
+| **Category 2 Total** | **20** | **___** | |
+
+---
+
+### 4.4 Category 3: Team Qualifications and Experience (25 points)
+
+**Purpose**: Evaluate the vendor's team expertise, experience, and ability to deliver.
+
+#### Subcriteria
+
+| Subcriterion | Points | Evaluation Questions |
+|--------------|--------|---------------------|
+| **3.1 Key Personnel Qualifications** | 10 | • Do key personnel (architect, tech lead) have strong relevant experience?<br>• Do resumes demonstrate depth in required technologies?<br>• Are certifications appropriate and current?<br>• Is team composition appropriate (seniority mix)? |
+| **3.2 Team Size & Allocation** | 5 | • Is team size adequate for scope?<br>• Are key personnel dedicated (not spread thin)?<br>• Is ramp-up/ramp-down plan reasonable?<br>• Are backup resources identified? |
+| **3.3 Domain Expertise** | 5 | • Does team have experience in our industry?<br>• Do they understand our domain challenges?<br>• Have they solved similar problems before?<br>• Is domain knowledge demonstrated in proposal? |
+| **3.4 Technology Expertise** | 5 | • Does team have deep expertise in proposed technologies?<br>• Are multiple team members proficient (not single point of failure)?<br>• Do they have experience with modern DevOps/cloud practices?<br>• Are there capability gaps requiring training? |
+
+#### Scoring Template
+
+**Vendor Name**: _______________
+
+| Subcriterion | Max Points | Score | Justification |
+|--------------|------------|-------|---------------|
+| 3.1 Key Personnel Qualifications | 10 | ___ | |
+| 3.2 Team Size & Allocation | 5 | ___ | |
+| 3.3 Domain Expertise | 5 | ___ | |
+| 3.4 Technology Expertise | 5 | ___ | |
+| **Category 3 Total** | **25** | **___** | |
+
+---
+
+### 4.5 Category 4: Relevant Experience and References (15 points)
+
+**Purpose**: Evaluate vendor's track record delivering similar projects successfully.
+
+#### Subcriteria
+
+| Subcriterion | Points | Evaluation Questions |
+|--------------|--------|---------------------|
+| **4.1 Reference Project Relevance** | 8 | • Are reference projects similar in scope and complexity?<br>• Do they demonstrate required capabilities?<br>• Were projects successful (on time, on budget, quality)?<br>• Are reference clients willing to be contacted? |
+| **4.2 Industry Experience** | 4 | • Does vendor have significant experience in our industry?<br>• Do they understand industry-specific regulations/constraints?<br>• Can they provide industry-relevant insights? |
+| **4.3 Innovation & Thought Leadership** | 3 | • Is vendor recognized as technology leader?<br>• Do they contribute to open source or industry standards?<br>• Do they demonstrate innovative approaches?<br>• Are they forward-thinking vs. commoditized? |
+
+#### Reference Project Evaluation
+
+For each reference project, score on these dimensions:
+
+| Reference | Similarity to Our Project | Success Indicators | Reference Check Result | Notes |
+|-----------|---------------------------|--------------------|-----------------------|-------|
+| Reference 1 | High/Med/Low | On time, budget, quality | Positive/Neutral/Negative | |
+| Reference 2 | High/Med/Low | On time, budget, quality | Positive/Neutral/Negative | |
+| Reference 3 | High/Med/Low | On time, budget, quality | Positive/Neutral/Negative | |
+
+#### Scoring Template
+
+**Vendor Name**: _______________
+
+| Subcriterion | Max Points | Score | Justification |
+|--------------|------------|-------|---------------|
+| 4.1 Reference Project Relevance | 8 | ___ | |
+| 4.2 Industry Experience | 4 | ___ | |
+| 4.3 Innovation & Thought Leadership | 3 | ___ | |
+| **Category 4 Total** | **15** | **___** | |
+
+---
+
+### 4.6 Category 5: Understanding of Requirements (5 points)
+
+**Purpose**: Evaluate how well vendor understands the problem and requirements.
+
+#### Subcriteria
+
+| Subcriterion | Points | Evaluation Questions |
+|--------------|--------|---------------------|
+| **5.1 Problem Understanding** | 2 | • Does vendor demonstrate understanding of our business problem?<br>• Do they articulate WHY we need this solution?<br>• Do they show empathy for user needs? |
+| **5.2 Requirements Comprehension** | 2 | • Are all key requirements addressed in proposal?<br>• Are requirements interpreted correctly?<br>• Are gaps or ambiguities identified? |
+| **5.3 Thoughtful Questions** | 1 | • Did vendor ask insightful questions during Q&A?<br>• Do questions demonstrate critical thinking?<br>• Do they probe areas of risk or uncertainty? |
+
+#### Scoring Template
+
+**Vendor Name**: _______________
+
+| Subcriterion | Max Points | Score | Justification |
+|--------------|------------|-------|---------------|
+| 5.1 Problem Understanding | 2 | ___ | |
+| 5.2 Requirements Comprehension | 2 | ___ | |
+| 5.3 Thoughtful Questions | 1 | ___ | |
+| **Category 5 Total** | **5** | **___** | |
+
+---
+
+### 4.7 Technical Scoring Summary
+
+**Vendor Name**: _______________
+
+| Category | Max Points | Score | Percentage |
+|----------|------------|-------|------------|
+| 1. Technical Approach & Solution Design | 35 | ___ | ___% |
+| 2. Project Approach & Methodology | 20 | ___ | ___% |
+| 3. Team Qualifications & Experience | 25 | ___ | ___% |
+| 4. Relevant Experience & References | 15 | ___ | ___% |
+| 5. Understanding of Requirements | 5 | ___ | ___% |
+| **TOTAL TECHNICAL SCORE** | **100** | **___** | **___%** |
+
+---
+
+## 5. Cost Evaluation
+
+Cost proposals are opened **only for shortlisted vendors** after technical evaluation is complete.
+
+### 5.1 Cost Scoring Methodology
+
+**Method**: [SELECT ONE]
+
+#### Option A: Lowest Price Best Value (Recommended)
+
+- Lowest cost proposal receives 100 points
+- Other proposals scaled proportionally
+- Formula: `Cost Score = (Lowest Price / Vendor Price) × 100`
+
+#### Option B: Fixed Weight
+
+- Cost is [30]% of total score
+- Technical is [70]% of total score
+- Final Score = (Technical Score × 0.70) + (Cost Score × 0.30)
+
+#### Option C: Cost Reasonableness
+
+- Each vendor scored on cost reasonableness (not purely lowest)
+- Scoring based on value for money, not absolute price
+- Consider: total cost, cost breakdown, value provided
+
+### 5.2 Cost Evaluation Criteria (if using Option C)
+
+| Criterion | Points | Evaluation Questions |
+|-----------|--------|---------------------|
+| **Total Cost Competitiveness** | 40 | How does total cost compare to budget and other vendors? |
+| **Cost Breakdown Transparency** | 20 | Is cost breakdown detailed and transparent? Are costs justified? |
+| **Value for Money** | 30 | Considering technical quality, is this good value? |
+| **Payment Terms** | 10 | Are payment terms favorable and aligned with milestones? |
+| **TOTAL** | **100** | |
+
+### 5.3 Cost Analysis Template
+
+| Vendor | Total Cost | Cost per Point (Technical) | Rank by Cost | Rank by Value | Notes |
+|--------|------------|---------------------------|--------------|---------------|-------|
+| Vendor A | $[X] | $[X/pt] | 1 | | |
+| Vendor B | $[X] | $[X/pt] | 2 | | |
+| Vendor C | $[X] | $[X/pt] | 3 | | |
+
+**Cost Breakdown Comparison**:
+
+| Cost Category | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Notes |
+|---------------|----------|----------|----------|-------|
+| Labor | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | |
+| Infrastructure | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | |
+| Licenses/Tools | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | |
+| Travel | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | |
+| Contingency | $[X] | $[X] | $[X] | |
+| **Total** | **$[X]** | **$[X]** | **$[X]** | |
+
+---
+
+## 6. Combined Scoring
+
+### 6.1 Final Scoring Formula
+
+**Final Score = (Technical Score × [0.70]) + (Cost Score × [0.30])**
+
+Adjust weights based on organizational priorities:
+
+- High technical complexity: 80% technical, 20% cost
+- Cost-sensitive: 60% technical, 40% cost
+- Balanced: 70% technical, 30% cost
+
+### 6.2 Combined Scoring Summary
+
+| Vendor | Technical Score (100) | Technical Weighted ([70]%) | Cost Score (100) | Cost Weighted ([30]%) | **Final Score** | Rank |
+|--------|-----------------------|----------------------------|------------------|-----------------------|-----------------|------|
+| Vendor A | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | **___** | |
+| Vendor B | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | **___** | |
+| Vendor C | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | **___** | |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Vendor Presentations
+
+Shortlisted vendors present their proposals to the evaluation committee.
+
+### 7.1 Presentation Format
+
+**Duration**: [2 hours]
+
+- Vendor presentation: [60 minutes]
+- Q&A: [60 minutes]
+
+**Attendees**:
+
+- Evaluation committee (all members)
+- Key stakeholders (business sponsors, technical leads)
+- Note-taker (non-voting)
+
+**Presentation Content**:
+
+1. Company overview (5 min)
+2. Team introductions (5 min)
+3. Solution overview (15 min)
+4. Technical deep-dive (20 min)
+5. Project approach (10 min)
+6. Demo (if applicable) (5 min)
+7. Q&A (60 min)
+
+### 7.2 Presentation Evaluation
+
+Presentations are NOT separately scored but may adjust existing scores based on:
+
+- Clarifications that resolve concerns (improve scores)
+- Red flags or concerning answers (lower scores)
+- Team chemistry and communication effectiveness
+
+**Post-Presentation Actions**:
+
+1. Evaluation committee discusses each vendor
+2. Scores adjusted if significant new information emerged
+3. Updated scores documented with rationale
+
+---
+
+## 8. Reference Checks
+
+### 8.1 Reference Check Process
+
+For each shortlisted vendor, contact **all provided references** (minimum 3).
+
+**Reference Check Template**:
+
+**Reference Information**:
+
+- Client Organization: _______________
+- Contact Name: _______________
+- Contact Role: _______________
+- Project: _______________
+- Timeframe: _______________
+
+**Questions**:
+
+1. **Project Scope**: Can you describe the project [Vendor] delivered for you?
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+2. **On-Time Delivery**: Was the project delivered on schedule? If not, what caused delays?
+   - [ ] On time  [ ] Minor delays (<10%)  [ ] Significant delays (>10%)
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+3. **On-Budget Delivery**: Was the project delivered within budget? Were there change orders?
+   - [ ] On budget  [ ] Minor overruns (<10%)  [ ] Significant overruns (>10%)
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+4. **Quality**: Was the quality of deliverables high? Did it meet your expectations?
+   - [ ] Exceeded expectations  [ ] Met expectations  [ ] Below expectations
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+5. **Team Effectiveness**: How effective was the vendor's team? Communication? Responsiveness?
+   - [ ] Excellent  [ ] Good  [ ] Adequate  [ ] Poor
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+6. **Issue Resolution**: How did the vendor handle problems or conflicts?
+   - [ ] Very well  [ ] Adequately  [ ] Poorly
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+7. **Technical Expertise**: Did the team demonstrate strong technical skills?
+   - [ ] Excellent  [ ] Good  [ ] Adequate  [ ] Lacking
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+8. **Post-Go-Live Support**: How was support during warranty/maintenance phase?
+   - [ ] Excellent  [ ] Good  [ ] Adequate  [ ] Poor  [ ] N/A
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+9. **Would You Hire Again?**: Would you engage this vendor for another project?
+   - [ ] Definitely  [ ] Probably  [ ] Maybe  [ ] No
+   - Notes: _______________
+
+10. **Anything Else**: Is there anything else we should know about working with this vendor?
+    - Notes: _______________
+
+**Reference Check Summary**:
+
+- [ ] Highly Positive (enthusiastic, would rehire, exceeded expectations)
+- [ ] Positive (satisfied, met expectations, would consider again)
+- [ ] Mixed (some concerns, met most expectations, might rehire with reservations)
+- [ ] Negative (not satisfied, below expectations, would not rehire)
+
+### 8.2 Reference Check Impact on Scoring
+
+Reference checks do NOT add points but may **disqualify** or **lower scores**:
+
+- **Disqualification**: Multiple negative references or single highly negative reference
+- **Score Adjustment**: Concerning patterns (e.g., always over budget) may lower relevant subcriteria scores by 10-20%
+
+---
+
+## 9. Final Selection Decision
+
+### 9.1 Decision Factors
+
+The highest scoring vendor is typically selected, but decision may also consider:
+
+**Quantitative (Objective)**:
+
+- Final combined score
+- Cost relative to budget
+- Technical score threshold (minimum 70/100 technical required)
+
+**Qualitative (Subjective)**:
+
+- Cultural fit and communication style
+- Confidence in delivery based on presentations and references
+- Strategic partnership potential
+- Risk tolerance (prefer known vendor vs. innovative newcomer)
+
+### 9.2 Decision Matrix
+
+| Vendor | Final Score | Technical Score | Cost | Reference Check | Cultural Fit | Risk Level | Recommendation |
+|--------|-------------|-----------------|------|-----------------|--------------|------------|----------------|
+| Vendor A | ___ | ___ | $X | Positive | Good | Low | [ ] Select |
+| Vendor B | ___ | ___ | $Y | Very Positive | Excellent | Low | [ ] Select |
+| Vendor C | ___ | ___ | $Z | Mixed | Good | Medium | [ ] Select |
+
+### 9.3 Selection Approval
+
+**Decision Authority**: [CTO/CIO | Procurement Committee | Steering Committee]
+
+**Approval Requirements**:
+
+- Evaluation summary presented to decision authority
+- Rationale for selection documented
+- Risks and mitigation strategies outlined
+- Budget approval confirmed
+
+**Approval Form**:
+
+**Recommended Vendor**: _______________
+
+**Selection Rationale**:
+[Summary of why this vendor was selected]
+
+**Key Strengths**:
+
+- [Strength 1]
+- [Strength 2]
+- [Strength 3]
+
+**Risks and Mitigations**:
+
+- [Risk 1]: [Mitigation strategy]
+- [Risk 2]: [Mitigation strategy]
+
+**Approvals**:
+
+| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
+|------|------|-----------|------|
+| Evaluation Lead | [NAME] | _________ | [DATE] |
+| Enterprise Architect | [NAME] | _________ | [DATE] |
+| Executive Sponsor | [NAME] | _________ | [DATE] |
+| CTO/CIO | [NAME] | _________ | [DATE] |
+
+---
+
+## 10. Vendor Notification
+
+### 10.1 Award Notification
+
+**Selected Vendor**:
+
+- Notify within [1 business day] of decision
+- Schedule contract negotiation kickoff
+- Provide high-level feedback on their strengths
+
+### 10.2 Non-Selected Vendors
+
+**Notification Timeline**: Within [2 business days] of decision
+
+**Notification Content**:
+
+- Thank vendor for their proposal
+- Inform them they were not selected
+- Offer optional debrief call (no obligation)
+
+**Debrief Guidelines** (if vendor requests):
+
+- Schedule within 2 weeks of request
+- Provide constructive feedback on their proposal
+- Do NOT disclose other vendors' scores or details
+- Do NOT disclose cost of other proposals
+- Focus on areas for improvement
+
+---
+
+## 11. Appeals Process
+
+Vendors may appeal selection decision if they believe process was unfair.
+
+### 11.1 Grounds for Appeal
+
+Appeals accepted only for:
+
+- [ ] Evaluation process not followed as documented
+- [ ] Scoring errors or mathematical mistakes
+- [ ] Evaluator conflict of interest not disclosed
+- [ ] Vendor information misrepresented by evaluation team
+
+Appeals NOT accepted for:
+
+- [ ] Disagreement with evaluation criteria
+- [ ] Disagreement with scores or subjective judgments
+- [ ] "We should have won because we're cheaper"
+
+### 11.2 Appeal Process
+
+1. Vendor submits written appeal within [5 business days] of notification
+2. Appeal reviewed by impartial party (e.g., Legal, Internal Audit)
+3. Review completed within [10 business days]
+4. Decision communicated to vendor
+5. Procurement Lead's decision is final
+
+---
+
+## 12. Documentation and Records
+
+### 12.1 Required Documentation
+
+All evaluation materials must be retained for [3 years]:
+
+- [ ] RFP/SOW document
+- [ ] All vendor proposals (technical and cost)
+- [ ] Individual scoring sheets
+- [ ] Consensus scoring sheets
+- [ ] Presentation notes
+- [ ] Reference check notes
+- [ ] Selection decision memo
+- [ ] Approval signatures
+
+### 12.2 Confidentiality
+
+Evaluation materials are confidential:
+
+- Evaluators sign non-disclosure agreement
+- Proposals not shared outside evaluation committee
+- Scores and vendor comparisons remain confidential
+- Vendor debriefs do not disclose competitor information
+
+---
+
+## Appendices
+
+### Appendix A: Individual Evaluator Scorecard
+
+[Complete scoring template for each evaluator to fill out independently]
+
+### Appendix B: Consensus Scoring Worksheet
+
+[Template for facilitated consensus scoring meeting]
+
+### Appendix C: Evaluation Committee Charter
+
+[Defines roles, responsibilities, decision-making process]
+
+### Appendix D: Conflict of Interest Form
+
+[Form for evaluators to disclose any conflicts]
+
+---
+
+**Document Control**
+
+| Version | Date | Author | Changes |
+|---------|------|--------|---------|
+| 1.0 | [DATE] | [AUTHOR] | Initial version |
+
+## External References
+
+> This section provides traceability from generated content back to source documents.
+> Follow citation instructions in the project's citation reference guide.
+
+### Document Register
+
+| Doc ID | Filename | Type | Source Location | Description |
+|--------|----------|------|-----------------|-------------|
+| *None provided* | — | — | — | — |
+
+### Citations
+
+| Citation ID | Doc ID | Page/Section | Category | Quoted Passage |
+|-------------|--------|--------------|----------|----------------|
+| — | — | — | — | — |
+
+### Unreferenced Documents
+
+| Filename | Source Location | Reason |
+|----------|-----------------|--------|
+| — | — | — |
+
+---
+
+**Generated by**: ArcKit `/arckit:evaluate` command
+**Generated on**: [DATE]
+**ArcKit Version**: [VERSION]
+**Project**: [PROJECT_NAME]
+**Model**: [AI_MODEL]