The SprintProposal developmentPursuit memoryCaptureGraphicsGraduationCompareAboutResultsLearnDoPricingWorkbenchSecurityFAQBook a call →
‹ frwrd.do

Compliance matrix

Proposal · traceability

The table that maps every requirement in Sections L, M, and C/PWS to where you answer it, who owns it, and whether it's done. The spine of the proposal — and the thing that loses you the bid if a single “shall” goes unanswered.

When you reach for it. Day one after RFP drop, before anyone writes a word. It's the first artifact built and the last thing checked before submission.

Take the template

Start it in Word

Copy, paste into your document, fill the brackets.

| Req ID | Source (L/M/C + ¶) | Shall statement (one testable obligation) | Response location | Owner (name) | Status | Win theme / proof link |
|--------|--------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------------|--------|------------------------|
|        |                    |                                            |                   |              |        |                        |
Take the prompt

Draft it in Claude

Copy, paste into Claude, add your own inputs.

You are a proposal manager building a compliance matrix.

I will paste raw text from Sections L, M, and C/PWS.

For each requirement:
1. Atomize compound “shall” statements into one testable obligation per row.
2. Tag the source section and paragraph.
3. Note whether it is a WRITE instruction (L), an EVALUATION factor (M),
   or a WORK requirement (C/PWS) — and flag any C/PWS requirement that
   Section M scores, since those carry the most weight.
4. Leave response location, owner, and status blank for me to fill.

Return a markdown table. Do not invent requirements not in the text.

Why this works

Requirement IDYour own scheme, traceable to the source (e.g. L.3.2.1, M-2, C.5.1).
SourceL / M / C / PWS / SOW + paragraph. Section L says what to write; M says how they score it; C/PWS says what you must do. Map all three or you write to L and lose on M.
Shall statementThe verbatim requirement, atomized. Split compound shalls — one row per testable obligation.
Response locationVolume, section, page. Filled as the draft matures. Empty at pink team = a gap, not a TBD.
OwnerA name, not a team.
StatusNot started / drafted / reviewed / compliant.
Win theme / proof link (optional)Which discriminator or proof point lands here. This is what turns a compliance tracker into a strategy tool.

A worked example

Req IDSourceShall statement (atomized)Response loc.OwnerStatusStrategy link
C.5.1aPWS 5.1Contractor shall migrate all production workloads to a FedRAMP High environment.Vol I §3.2OkaforcompliantWT-2 (blue-green)
C.5.1bPWS 5.1Contractor shall maintain continuity of citizen-facing services during migration.Vol I §3.2OkafordraftedWT-2
M-2Sec MApproach evaluated on transition risk mitigation.Vol I §3.4ReyesreviewedWT-2, PP-1
L.3.2Sec LSubmit transition plan not to exceed 10 pages.Vol I §3.4Reyesnot started

Is mine right? The tells

Green flags

Every shall is atomized to one testable obligation. M is mapped, not just L. Owners are people. The matrix is the meeting agenda, not a document generated at the end to look compliant.

Red flags

Compound requirements left whole (“shall provide and maintain and report…”). Only Section L mapped. “Various” in the owner column. Built after the proposal instead of driving it.

Want the theory behind it? Five compliance mistakes that get proposals thrown out Learn explains why; this is where you grab it.
Sources & further reading

Or have frwrd run this for you.

Grab it here when you’ve got it handled. When the bid matters more than the afternoon, a senior operator builds it — right, on deadline, as part of the pursuit.

Start with the Sprint