Use this scorecard after initial conversations and before final selection. Score each category from 1 to 5, then write the evidence behind the score. A number without evidence is only an impression.
| Criteria | 1 — Limited evidence | 3 — Adequate | 5 — Strong evidence | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparable experience | Relevant work is unclear | Similar work completed | Demonstrates comparable complexity and outcomes | ___ |
| Project method | Generic description | Defined core workflow | Clear, repeatable method with decision points and deliverables | ___ |
| Existing conditions | Relies on supplied information | Verifies critical items | Has a field-intelligence plan aligned to project risk | ___ |
| Coordination | Works by discipline | Coordinates as needed | Shows clear cross-discipline and builder coordination process | ___ |
| Permitting / compliance | Limited jurisdiction awareness | Familiar with pathway | Explains approval strategy, reviewer process, and response ownership | ___ |
| Cost / schedule awareness | Separate from design decisions | Addresses when asked | Connects decisions to scope, pricing, sequencing, and risk | ___ |
| Communication | Reactive updates | Regular meetings | Clear decision logs, escalation path, and owner-facing communication | ___ |
| Team integration | Individual-scope focus | Collaborates with team | Demonstrates responsibility at interfaces and handoffs | ___ |
| Commercial clarity | Broad exclusions | Scope generally defined | Assumptions, exclusions, revisions, and change process are explicit | ___ |
Decision prompts
- What are the three risks most likely to affect this project?
- Which candidate has the clearest method for managing each risk?
- Where are responsibilities still ambiguous?
- What information will the owner need to supply, and when?
- Which scope gaps or exclusions could become major project costs later?
- Does the team improve collective project capability, or simply perform its isolated scope?
Selection note: The purpose is not to find the “best” firm in the abstract. It is to choose the team best equipped for the project’s real conditions, decisions, and risks.