# Compliance matrix, then drafting Mechanics first, prose second. A technically excellent response that misses a required form scores zero. --- ## Part 1 — The compliance matrix Built before any writing. It is the checklist the submission is validated against. **Extract from the solicitation:** - Every required section, in the order the solicitation names them - Page limits, per section and overall - Format constraints — font, size, margins, line spacing, file type, file size - Every required form, certification, and attachment - Evaluation criteria with their point values - Question deadline, submission deadline with time zone, submission method **Map every requirement to the section that answers it:** ``` Req Source Requirement Answered in Status L-3.1 Sec L p.14 Technical approach, ≤10 pages Vol I §2 Draft L-3.2 Sec L p.14 Past performance, 3 refs Vol I §3 Draft L-4 Sec L p.16 SF-33 signed Vol III Not started M-2 Sec M p.19 Key personnel resumes Vol I §4 Missing 1 ``` **Every row gets a status.** A requirement with no row is the one that gets missed, and evaluators are usually required to reject rather than allowed to overlook. --- ## Weighting the writing to the evaluation criteria The evaluation section is the scoring rubric, published. Treat it as instruction. ``` Technical approach 40 pts Past performance 30 pts Key personnel 20 pts Price 10 pts ``` That means past performance gets three times the care of key personnel. Small organizations routinely write the section they find most interesting rather than the one worth the most points, and then lose by a margin the reallocation would have covered. **Mirror the evaluators' language.** If the criterion says "demonstrated experience with occupied-facility work," use that phrase. Evaluators score against a sheet, often quickly, and making the match findable is not a trick — it is basic courtesy to the reader. --- ## Part 2 — Drafting from real material **Start from past submissions.** Pull the closest prior response and adapt it. This is not laziness; it is how experienced bidders hit volume, and the reused language has usually already survived an evaluation. **Adapt, do not paste.** The three reliable failures of copied text: the wrong agency name survives, an outdated number survives, and the requirement it answered last time is not the one being asked now. Read every reused paragraph against the current requirement. --- ## The honesty line **Never fabricate past performance, staff credentials, program outcomes, financials, or partnerships.** On a federal application this is not a style problem. The certification page states that the submission is true and complete, and false statements carry consequences under the False Claims Act. It is a legal exposure the organization cannot afford, and it is created by one invented sentence. The realistic failure is not a bold lie. It is small and it looks like this: - "Served over 500 students annually" when the real figure is 380 - A staff bio saying "certified" when the certification lapsed - A partnership listed before the partner agreed - A past contract described at a scope slightly larger than it was - An outcome percentage nobody can source **Every one of those is checkable, and several of them get checked.** --- ## Handling gaps When a number, reference, or credential is missing, mark it and ask. Precisely: ``` [NEEDS RAY] Section 3, past performance ref #3 — need the contract value and period for the Millbrook school district job. Says "approximately USD 200k" in the 2024 proposal; the solicitation wants exact figures. ``` Three properties of a good gap marker: it names who can answer, it says exactly what is needed, and it says why the placeholder is not good enough. **A gap the owner fills in five minutes beats an invented figure that survives into three future proposals** because it was already written down and looked authoritative. **Never let a placeholder ship.** The pre-submission check greps for every marker and blocks on any that remain. --- ## Writing that scores **Answer the question that was asked.** The single most common scoring failure is a well-written section that answers an adjacent question. Re-read the requirement after drafting and check it literally. **Be specific.** "We have extensive experience serving at-risk youth" scores below "Since 2019 we have served 380 students annually across four school districts, with 71% advancing two grade levels in reading within twelve months." Numbers with sources beat adjectives, always. **Respect the page limit exactly.** Over-length responses get truncated or rejected. The limit is a constraint on what to include, and deciding what to cut is part of the work. **Do not pad.** Evaluators read many of these in a sitting. A tight response that answers the criteria is more pleasant to score, and pleasantness at hour six of scoring is worth real points. --- ## Cover letters and funder correspondence Cover letters, question submissions, and any correspondence with a program officer read [the shared voice profile](../../../shared/voice-profile.md) so they sound like the organization rather than a proposal shop. A program officer relationship is a real asset for a nonprofit, and correspondence that reads as boilerplate wastes it. --- ## Pre-submission check Run before anything is sent: 1. Every compliance matrix row is complete 2. Every page and format limit respected, measured not estimated 3. Every form present and signed 4. No placeholder or gap marker remaining anywhere 5. Portal registration active and credentials tested 6. Deadline confirmed, in the solicitation's time zone 7. File names and formats match what was specified **Then the owner approves the submission explicitly.** They see what is going, to whom, by when, and what it commits the organization to — the certifications, the delivery obligation, and the reporting that follows a win. **Submit early.** Portal traffic on deadline day is a real and recurring cause of missed submissions, and there is no appeal.