Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Execution and reliability
35% weight
Check whether they have worked to hard submission deadlines: RFP or grant packets assembled, compliance matrices filled, page limits and formatting rules on portals like SAM.gov or Bonfire.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.
2
Needs Improvement
Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.
4
Very Good
Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.
5
Excellent
Names specific submissions they supported, tracked deadlines in a compliance matrix, and delivered clean formatted packets with zero missing attachments.
02
Evaluation factor
Improving the process
25% weight
Probe for tidying they did themselves: reusable boilerplate libraries, resume and past-performance templates, version control in SharePoint, checklists that cut rework on repeat questionnaires.
Evidence to listen for
Has changed a process rather than only following one
Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
Documents so the improvement survives them
Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.
2
Needs Improvement
Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.
3
Satisfactory
Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.
4
Very Good
Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.
5
Excellent
Describes a content library, template, or tracker they built that shortened turnaround on later proposals, with before and after detail.
03
Evaluation factor
Judgement and autonomy
25% weight
Assess how they handle vague inputs: an unanswerable RFP question, a subject matter expert who misses a draft deadline, a requirement that conflicts with the scope.
Evidence to listen for
Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.
2
Needs Improvement
Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.
3
Satisfactory
Sound judgement on familiar decisions.
4
Very Good
Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.
5
Excellent
Explains when they escalated versus drafted a placeholder, flagged a go or no-go concern, and made defensible calls without waiting to be told.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication
15% weight
Judge their writing under constraint: turning engineer or clinician notes into persuasive prose, tailoring to evaluation criteria, chasing SMEs politely without stalling the schedule.
Evidence to listen for
Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
Works across time zones or async where the role needs it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.
3
Satisfactory
Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.
4
Very Good
Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.
5
Excellent
Writes tightly to the evaluator's scoring language, cites a piece they drafted, and shows a workable habit for extracting content from busy experts.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
