Foundry Academy · Government Proposal Coordination · Lesson 4 of 6

Evidence, past performance, and resumes

Collect accurate, permitted, solicitation-relevant proof while preventing unsupported, stale, or unauthorized claims.

Start the lesson

Your learning work, on this device

No signup, cloud storage, cross-device sync or verified completion. Saving is optional. This browser profile is shared with anyone who can use it; private mode, browser cleanup or storage limits may remove work. Use only fictional or non-sensitive material. Export a copy before relying on this device.

Not saved. Worksheets, answers and practice notes currently last only in this tab.

Practice markers are self-reported, never credentials.

01 · Explanation

Evidence, past performance, and resumes

Objective: Collect accurate, permitted, solicitation-relevant proof while preventing unsupported, stale, or unauthorized claims.

Issue structured data calls tied to the compliance matrix. For each requested item, state the requirement, evaluation use, format, period, owner, reviewer, source, due date, and sensitivity. Past-performance material should match the solicitation's definition of recency and relevance and accurately identify scope, role, value, dates, outcomes, and customer contact rules. Do not rename subcontractor work as prime experience, inflate contract value, omit material performance problems, or reuse a customer reference without permission and current contact details.

Resumes and key-personnel summaries must reflect real qualifications, availability, employment or teaming status, and proposed role. Confirm consent before using personal information. Reconcile dates, titles, credentials, and project descriptions with source records; do not add keywords that imply experience the person does not have. Maintain an evidence library with version, approval, reuse restriction, and expiration date. Contracting, privacy, employment, export-control, clearance, and proprietary-information questions may require authorized legal, security, human-resources, or contracting review. The coordinator's job is traceability and timely escalation, not certification of facts outside their authority.

Before you begin

  • Confirm the amendment, provisional warehouse evidence, price conflict, resume conflict, and missing reference permission.
  • Separate a claim defect from a missing source record and from an authorized corrected claim.
  • Do not contact references or rewrite resumes as approved evidence in this exercise.

Original overview module anchor →

02 · Compare the artifacts

Supported work. Visible uncertainty.

This is a fictional, sanitized training case. Solicitation identifiers, agencies, companies, people, pricing, and performance records are invented and are not legal, contracting, pricing, or government representations advice.

Canyon Response Logistics proposal sprint

Canyon Response Logistics, a fictional small business, is considering a federal request for quotations for emergency warehouse staging. The official package was downloaded on September 3 and requires electronic submission by 2:00 p.m. Eastern on September 18. It contains 47 stated requirements, a price schedule with 12 line items, two mandatory representations, three past-performance examples, and a 12-page technical limit. An amendment issued September 10 changes the delivery window from 30 days to 14 days, replaces one line-item quantity, and requires explicit amendment acknowledgment. The capture lead's calendar still uses the original deadline in Mountain Time and the draft compliance matrix has not incorporated the amendment. Operations believes 14-day delivery is possible only if a subcontracted warehouse is available; the subcontractor supplied an unsigned availability email but no binding commitment. Finance's workbook totals $486,200, while the price form totals $468,200 because a freight row is omitted. A resume says the proposed project manager led a $3 million federal program, but the approved employment record shows the person served as deputy for nine months. One past-performance reference has not granted current contact permission. The draft technical narrative is 13.5 pages before final graphics. The company president may sign offers up to $500,000, but the proposal coordinator has no signature or certification authority. The government portal requires multi-factor authentication and has a 25-megabyte package limit; the current folder is 31 megabytes and contains working notes that should not be submitted. Learners must qualify the opportunity, rebuild compliance control, coordinate evidence and review, and demonstrate a submission process. They must not invent commitments, alter official instructions, or represent that training guarantees award or eligibility.

Supported example — reference only

Entry ID
CLAIM-ROLE-01
Issue or event
Resume claims program leadership while approved records show a deputy role for nine months.
Evidence and source ID
M04-I04 (F08, conflicting)
Risk or impact
Role and duration may be materially overstated in the proposal.
Owner
Authorized resume source owner and proposal reviewer
Bounded next step
Approved role and date source: not supplied. Obtain it, draft a source-faithful correction, and retain both versions.
Review point
Before resume or past-performance content is released.
Status
Conflict open — claim use blocked

A well-handled evidence gap

Entry ID
CLAIM-PERM-01
Issue or event
Proposed past-performance contact has not provided current reference permission.
Evidence and source ID
M04-I05 (F09, confirmed)
Risk or impact
Unpermitted contact use may create privacy, relationship, or compliance exposure.
Owner
Authorized past-performance source owner
Bounded next step
Record a permission request requirement; do not contact or claim permission in this exercise.
Review point
Before naming the contact or submitting the reference.
Status
Permission not supplied — use blocked

Flawed approach — do not copy

Marking this claim-evidence ledger “approved and complete” without the required evidence or reviewer is a flawed submission. Stop use of any claim whose role, date, value, scope, delivery, price, or permission lacks authorized source support.

Repair: Rework the claim-evidence ledger as an evidence-backed draft, not an approved result. Create one ledger entry for each material delivery, price, role, date, scope, and permission claim. Record the claim as currently stated and cite the supplied fact showing confirmation, conflict, provisional status, or missing permission. Identify the exact underlying source needed to support or correct the claim. Check the revision against this requirement: All five supplied claim issues are separated into source, defect, correction, permission, and owner fields. If the required evidence is still absent, keep the decision blocked and identify the missing input or authorized reviewer.

Full case record, ambiguities and all assignments →

03 · Bounded practice

Build the claim-evidence ledger.

Validate resume, past performance, subcontractor, delivery, and price-support statements.

Deliverable: An evidence-ledger starter and claim-correction plan for the resume, warehouse, pricing, delivery, and past-performance issues; source excerpts and permissions not supplied remain explicit gaps.

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F03, F06, F07, F08, F09, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

Exact supplied inputs for this assignment
  • M04-I01 · F03 — Amendment one changes delivery to 14 days, changes a quantity, and requires acknowledgment.
  • M04-I02 · F06 — A proposed subcontract warehouse supplied only an unsigned availability email.
  • M04-I03 · F07 — Finance totals $486,200 and the required price form totals $468,200.
  • M04-I04 · F08 — The resume claims program leadership while approved records show a deputy role for nine months.
  • M04-I05 · F09 — One proposed past-performance contact has not provided current reference permission.
  • M04-B01 · CB01 — Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
  • M04-S01 · F03, F06, F07, F08, F09 — Build a starter version of “An evidence-ledger starter and claim-correction plan for the resume, warehouse, pricing, delivery, and past-performance issues; source excerpts and permissions not supplied remain explicit gaps.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

Operating procedure

  1. Create one ledger entry for each material delivery, price, role, date, scope, and permission claim.
  2. Record the claim as currently stated and cite the supplied fact showing confirmation, conflict, provisional status, or missing permission.
  3. Identify the exact underlying source needed to support or correct the claim.
  4. Distinguish correction text as a learner proposal and preserve the original claim and version history.
  5. Route price, resume, subcontract availability, delivery, and reference permission to their authorized source owners.
  6. Block claim use until the source, permission, reviewer, and corrected version are documented.
  7. Quality-check every ledger entry for role, dates, value, scope, delivery, price, permission, and no invented source.
Field-by-field guidance
Entry ID
Use a stable claim identifier tied to one statement.
Issue or event
Quote or summarize the claim defect without adding unsupported detail.
Evidence and source ID
Cite the exact M04-Ixx fact and confidence.
Risk or impact
State the compliance, credibility, pricing, delivery, or permission exposure.
Owner
Use the authorized source owner or proposal reviewer role.
Bounded next step
Request or locate the specific source, then propose correction for review.
Review point
Define when the claim must be rechecked before reuse.
Status
Use Confirmed defect, Conflict open, Permission missing, Source pending, or Approved use not supplied.
Claim-evidence ledger · learning draft
Entry IDIssue or eventEvidence and source IDRisk or impactOwnerBounded next stepReview pointStatus

Start with 2 rows; the complete workbook specifies 2 stable rows for this artifact. Add rows here or use the full download. No action is saved until you explicitly choose saving above.

Download complete six-module workbook (.md) · Structured case packet (.json)

Keep private client data, unpublished inventions, personal identifiers and credentials out of these public learning tools.

Module 4 · 2-item formative check

Evidence, past performance, and resumes

Choose an answer and request feedback. Read why each option does or does not fit the evidence. Answers stay in this tab unless you choose device-only saving; they are never submitted.

Question 1 of 2 · MODULE 4 · knowledgeWhich past-performance description follows an evidence-controlled and permission-aware proposal workflow?
Question 2 of 2 · MODULE 4 · scenarioWhich sequence responsibly repairs Canyon Response's resume, warehouse, price, delivery, and reference claims?

Answer either question to review its reasoning.

Inspect the artifact, not just your quiz answers

  • All five supplied claim issues are separated into source, defect, correction, permission, and owner fields.
  • No corrected claim is represented as approved or used.
  • Version history and review status preserve original and proposed wording.

Stop: Stop use of any claim whose role, date, value, scope, delivery, price, or permission lacks authorized source support.

Go: Go to review when original claim, source conflict, proposed correction, owner, and version history are visible.

Escalate: Escalate price, resume, subcontract, delivery, and reference-permission claims to their authorized source owners.

04 · Evidence to keep

Leave with usable work.

Data-call log, source-to-claim matrix, permissions, corrected record, resume approval, sensitivity marking, and unresolved discrepancy list.

Download your artifact CSV and, if wanted, export the learning-work JSON above. Neither export is a reviewed submission or certificate. Device-only saving is optional; you must press Save my work now after edits.

When all six artifacts are ready, compare the full packet against the track rubric. Qualified human review is still required before real-world decisions.

Proposal team reviewing printed requirements and compliance paperwork in an office.
Learn the standard. Practice the work.
Professionals presenting and reviewing a coordinated business proposal.
Leave with evidence you can inspect.

Sources, scope and review boundaries

Curriculum 2026.10.08-learning-paths-1. External source dates below are record checks, not continuing guarantees. Verify current requirements before consequential use.

far-15-304 · Current codified text

FAR 15.304: Evaluation factors and significant subfactors

Primary rule explaining that evaluation factors and their importance are stated in the solicitation.

Open reviewed external source ↗

far-4-802 · Current codified text

FAR 4.802: Contract files

Illustrative government-side contract-file rule for contracting, contract administration, and paying offices. It is not an offeror record-retention requirement; an offeror must identify its own applicable solicitation, contract, law, policy, and counsel-approved retention obligations.

Open reviewed external source ↗

ws-government-proposal-operating-standard · Academy internal operating standard

Wealth Synergy government-proposal coordination internal operating standard

Academy-selected requirement, version, review, evidence, handoff, and submission-simulation controls. This is an internal operating standard selected by Foundry Academy; it is not law, accreditation, licensure, or an external-standard requirement.

Version 1.0 · reviewed 2026-09-01 · owner: Foundry Academy curriculum owner

A future Wealth Synergy private professional-development certificate would be issued only after its assessment, capstone, identity, reviewer, retention, access, deletion, appeal, and issuance controls pass quality review. No credential is currently issued. Any future certificate would not be an accredited academic qualification, professional license, or government certification.