Free CSV template 25 evidence-first criteria

Public-sector software evaluation scorecard.

Compare workflow, security, migration, implementation, reliability, cost, and long-term fit without letting the strongest product demonstration define the decision. The template is free, editable, and designed to make unsupported claims visible.

Download the CSV scorecard Build the evaluation brief first

No email gate. Open in Excel, Google Sheets, LibreOffice, or another CSV-compatible tool.

  • Define before demosSet criteria and weights before vendor presentations.
  • Score the evidenceSeparate demonstrated capability from confident assertion.
  • Preserve exceptionsA high total cannot erase a mandatory control failure.
  • Record uncertaintyUnknown is a finding, not permission to assume.
How to use the template

Turn comparison into a controlled evaluation.

The spreadsheet is deliberately simple. The value comes from agreeing on the decision model, requesting comparable evidence, and documenting why each score was assigned.

  1. 01

    Define the operating problem.

    Document the workflow, users, information types, failure points, required outcomes, integrations, migration scope, and decision horizon. If the problem is vague, a numerical comparison only makes the ambiguity look precise.

  2. 02

    Change the model before reviewing vendors.

    Remove irrelevant criteria, add mandatory obligations, and adjust weights through an approved process. Freeze the model before proposals and demonstrations so criteria do not drift toward a preferred product.

  3. 03

    Issue the same evidence requests.

    Ask each supplier to respond to the same scenarios and evidence list. Use representative workflows and realistic volume, role, security, migration, and exception conditions. A scripted feature tour is not equivalent to an evaluation.

  4. 04

    Score independently, then reconcile.

    Have operational, technical, security, records, procurement, and implementation stakeholders score relevant areas before a consensus meeting. Record disagreements and missing evidence instead of averaging away material concerns.

  5. 05

    Carry findings into the agreement.

    Convert important demonstrations, dependencies, assumptions, service levels, data rights, migration commitments, and acceptance criteria into enforceable project and contract language. A selection record is useful only when delivery remains traceable to it.

Suggested scoring rubric

Score support, not presentation quality.

The CSV calculates each weighted result as vendor score × criterion weight ÷ 5. A complete score is 100, but the total must remain subordinate to mandatory requirements and unresolved risk.

0
No response, unacceptable gap, or disqualifying evidence.
1
Assertion only, material uncertainty, or a major workaround.
2
Partial capability with significant dependency, customization, or risk.
3
Meets the defined baseline with credible supporting evidence.
4
Exceeds the baseline in a way that creates relevant operational value.
5
Strong, demonstrated fit with mature evidence and manageable dependencies.
Coverage

The questions feature matrices routinely miss.

Each category contains five equally weighted criteria in the starter template. That balance is neutral by design; your approved priorities should determine the final model.

01

Operational fit

Workflow coverage, role usability, configuration flexibility, accessibility and public service, and reporting oversight.

02

Security and privacy

Identity and access, encryption and keys, auditability, vulnerability and incident readiness, and responsible data handling.

03

Data and interoperability

Migration integrity, APIs and integration, data quality, retention and portability, and reliable search and findability.

04

Delivery and assurance

Discovery, implementation and testing, training and adoption, reliability and recovery, and support throughout the lifecycle.

05

Commercial and long-term fit

Total cost, contract and exit protection, roadmap maintainability, proof and references, and procurement fit.

Decision guardrails

Do not let the weighted total hide a critical failure.

  • Use pass/fail gates for statutory, security, accessibility, records, hosting, procurement, or interoperability requirements that cannot be traded away.
  • Track assumptions separately when a capability depends on future roadmap work, customer effort, third-party products, custom code, or unpriced services.
  • Test the difficult path using exceptions, incomplete data, role boundaries, failed integrations, high volume, recovery, and administrative change—not only the ideal workflow.
  • Review the contract with qualified procurement and legal personnel. The scorecard is a decision aid, not legal, compliance, or security assurance.
Use the full decision kit

Define the problem, compare the evidence, then decide whether a conversation is useful.

Start with the evaluation brief when the workflow and scope are still unclear. Use the CSV once the team is ready to compare options. Zeph Tech can review the high-level decision context if you want an outside fit check.

Download the scorecard Build the evaluation brief Request a fit review