Total marks possible: 18 points.
| Criteria | Exceeds Expectations | Meets Expectations | Below Expectations | No Submission |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope, Usage Scenario, Proposed Solution | [3 pts] The scope is clear and covers the intended usage scenario completely for the intended user groups. The proposed solution has interesting and unique features. The solution has a strong value proposition. The use cases are detailed and offer good coverage. | [2 pts] The scope is clear and covers the usage scenario minimally for the intended user groups. The proposed solution identifies the required features to build an adequate technical solution. The use cases are adequate and offer decent coverage. | [0 pt] The scope is not clear and/or the description does not fully cover a usage scenario from start to end. Usage scenario for certain user groups are missing. The proposed solution seems incomplete. The use cases are inadequate. | [0 pt] Not provided, significant information is missing, or information provided does not fit what was asked. |
| Technology Stack Evaluation | [3 pts] At least 3 options are available. The evaluation is detailed. The technology stack proposed makes sense and the solution is feasible and fitting for the client's project. | [2 pts] At least 3 options are available. The technology stack proposed mostly makes sense, but the rationale for the proposed stack is not convincing, or may not be suitable for the client's project. | [0 pt] No options and/or evaluation provided. The technology stack proposed may or may not be the best choice for the problem at hand. | [0 pt] Not provided, or significantly missing/erroneous. |
| Functional Requirements |
[3 pts] The necessary functional requirements to cover the proposed technical solution are completely identified. | [2 pts] The necessary functional requirements to cover the proposed technical solution are mostly identified. | [1 pt] Many functional requirements are missing. | [0 pt] Not provided, or significantly missing/erroneous. |
| Requirements Verification |
[3 pts] A test framework has been identified and makes sense to use. All the requirements have associated test cases that are well defined, testable, and automatable. Each requirement has good test case coverage. | [2 pts] A test framework has been identified and makes sense to use. Most of the requirements have associated test cases that are well defined, testable, and automatable. Each requirement has good/decent test case coverage. | [1 pt] The information about a test framework is missing or does not seem to make sense. Only some of the requirements have associated test cases that are well defined, testable, and automatable. Requirements do not have good test case coverage. | [0 pt] Not provided or largely missing/erroneou.s |
| Proposed Workload Distribution |
[3 pts] Everyone is assigned to a similar number of requirements for each level of difficulty. | [1 pt] Not everyone is assigned to requirements, or not all requirements have people assigned to them. Alternatively, some people have all the "hard" requirements and some have all the "easy" requirements. | [0 pt] Not provided or largely missing/erroneous. | |
| Writing Quality |
[3 pts] Very professionally and concisely written. | [2 pts] The report generally reads well and is coherent. | [1 pt] The report has many mistakes (technical and grammatical), or is overly lengthy. | [0 pt] Not clear at all. |