World Class Bid Red Team And Delivery Qc

---
name: world-class-bid-red-team-and-delivery-qc
description: Use when applying the final quality gate to high-stakes bids, donor submissions, consulting deliverables, compliance knockout scans, evidence audits, spreadsheets, and delivery feasibility.
metadata:
  portable: true
  compatible_with:
  - claude-code
  - codex
---

# World-Class Bid Red Team and Delivery QC
Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, +256 784 464178.

<!-- dual-compat-start -->
## Use When

- Before submitting a high-stakes bid or donor proposal.
- Before releasing needs assessments, TA packages, reports, dashboards, workbooks, price schedules, or executive documents.
- When evaluator scoring, compliance knockouts, evidence quality, feasibility, or spreadsheet integrity can decide success.

## Do Not Use When

- The work is low-stakes, internal, and has no material compliance or client-facing risk.
- Required source documents, scoring criteria, or deliverables are unavailable.

## Required Inputs

| Artefact | Required? | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Draft pack and compliance matrix | yes | Test mandatory requirements and coherence |
| Scoring grid and source evidence | yes | Support evaluator simulation and claims |
| Workplan, budget, assumptions, and validation notes | conditional | Test delivery and financial feasibility |

## Workflow

- Simulate the evaluator.
- Run compliance knockout checks.
- Audit evidence and claims.
- Review spreadsheets and file outputs.
- Test delivery feasibility.
- Require four-eyes sign-off before release.

## Quality Standards

- The bid/deliverable does not ship while a knockout issue remains open.
- Every material claim traces to evidence or is labelled as an assumption.
- Workbooks reconcile and file outputs are validated.
- Feasibility is judged against people, days, budget, approvals, and data reality.

## Anti-Patterns

- Treating QC as proofreading.
- Scoring the proposal generously instead of like the evaluator.
- Ignoring spreadsheet formula risk.
- Letting deadline pressure bypass the gate.

## Outputs

- Evaluator simulation, score prediction, knockout scan, evidence audit, spreadsheet review, feasibility review, and final sign-off record.

## Evidence Produced

| Category | Artifact | Format | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correctness | Compliance assessment | Scored matrix | Requirement reconciliation |
| Security | Submission-risk review | Findings register | Confidentiality control |
| Data safety | Evidence integrity review | Checklist | Workbook provenance |
| Performance | Delivery feasibility | Capacity table | Staffing against deadlines |
| Operability | Delivery control record | Ownership matrix | Approval dependency |
| UX quality | Evaluator-readability review | Annotated checklist | Navigation finding |
| Release evidence | Final ship decision | Sign-off record | Four-eyes approval |

## References

- `references/red-team-scorecard.md`: Evaluator simulation and scoring prediction.
- `references/qc-gates-and-evidence-audit.md`: Knockout, evidence, spreadsheet, feasibility, and sign-off gates.
<!-- dual-compat-end -->

## Core Workflow

1. Read the actual scoring grid and mandatory requirements.
2. Score the draft as the evaluator would, using the buyer's weights and language.
3. Predict whether the technical threshold is cleared and identify the weak scoring blocks.
4. Run a compliance knockout scan against all pass/fail requirements.
5. Audit claims, figures, laws, organisation names, dates, and benchmarks against the evidence register.
6. Review spreadsheet controls: formulae, totals, assumptions, locked cells, price/technical consistency, and VAT/tax treatment where relevant.
7. Test delivery feasibility against team capacity, fee-days, calendar, approvals, data access, travel, and reporting cadence.
8. Record required fixes and block release until critical findings are resolved.
9. Obtain independent four-eyes sign-off for release.

## Decision Rules

| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| Mandatory requirement is unmet | Block release |
| Claim lacks attributable evidence | Remove, qualify, or source it |
| Budget and method disagree | Reconcile before scoring |

## Capability Contract

Read and search are required. Editing and workbook execution require authorisation; final release requires an independent approver.

## Degraded Mode

Without source files or executable tooling, issue a provisional read-only verdict and list checks that prevent release.

## Domain Anti-Patterns

- Scoring from presentation quality alone.
- Accepting a compliance claim without location evidence.
- Ignoring spreadsheet formulas and hidden assumptions.
- Treating an unresolved knockout as minor.
- Self-approving the final release gate.