Interview scorecard template

Proposal Writer Intern interview scorecard

Evaluate Proposal Writer Intern candidates across 4 weighted areas: execution and reliability, improving the process, judgement and autonomy, and communication. Execution and reliability leads at 35%, so check whether they have worked to hard submission deadlines: RFP or grant packets assembled, compliance matrices filled, page limits and formatting rules on portals. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationbid supportcontent libraryproposal writingrfp response
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate names specific submissions they supported, tracked deadlines in a compliance matrix, and delivered clean formatted packets with zero missing attachments. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate describes a content library, template, or tracker they built that shortened turnaround on later proposals, with before and after detail. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

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.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Proposal Writer Intern

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe your writing experience and any relevant coursework?

  2. 02

    Can you provide an example of a time when you had to write persuasively?

  3. 03

    Have you had experience working with grants or contract proposals before?

  4. 04

    Are you familiar with any specific proposal formats or templates?

  5. 05

    Can you explain a time when you had to research a new topic quickly and write about it?

See the complete Proposal Writer Intern question set
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.

Explore AI Scorecards