Color reviews: Pink, Red and Gold

Practitioner12 min

By the end you can

Know what each review color checks.
Score a draft the way a board can.

Color reviews are scheduled internal checkpoints. In common practice a Pink review tests the outline, a Red review scores a full draft as an evaluation board would, and a Gold review is the final readiness check before submission.

Agencies may use any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights and ordinal rankings 1. A Red review that rates each Section M factor with adjectives practises one of those methods.

Bids2Bank runs the same three reviews 2, and its Red review rates each factor on a five-step adjectival scale from outstanding to unacceptable 3.

Check 1

Which rating methods does FAR 15.305(a) allow evaluators to use?Any method or combination, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights and ordinal rankingsOnly numerical scores out of 100Only pass or fail

Check 2

Which Bids2Bank review rates each Section M factor on an adjectival scale?RedPinkGold

Progress is saved in this browser only.

Indented paragraphs are invented worked examples. Tool links open Bids2Bank and need a free account.

Next lesson: Submit on time, then use the debrief

Sources

1. FAR 15.305(a)

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror's ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. Evaluations may be conducted using any rating method or combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings, numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. The relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks supporting proposal evaluation shall be documented in the contract file. (1) Cost or price evaluation. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. Therefore, when contracting on a firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis, comparison of the proposed prices will usually satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis, and a cost analysis need not be performed. In limited situations, a cost analysis may be appropriate to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror's price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)(C)). When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the offeror's understanding of the work, and the offeror's ability to perform the contract. Cost realism analyses may also be used on fixed-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixed-price-type contracts (see 15.404-1(d)(3)). (See 37.115 for uncompensated overtime evaluation.) The contracting officer shall document the cost or price evaluation. (2) Past performance evaluation. (i) Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. This comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from the responsibility determination required under subpart 9.1. (ii) The solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The solicitation shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information. (iii) The evaluation should take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. (iv) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. (v) The evaluation should include the past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns (see subpart 19.7). (vi) For offerors that are joint ventures, the evaluation shall take into account past performance of the joint venture. If the joint venture does not demonstrate past performance for award, the contracting officer shall consider the past performance of each party to the joint venture. (3) Technical evaluation. When tradeoffs are performed (see 15.101-1), the source selection records shall include— (i) An assessment of each offeror's ability to accomplish the technical requirements; and (ii) A summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking, along with appropriate supporting narrative, of each technical proposal using the evaluation factors. (4) Cost information. Cost information may be provided to members of the technical evaluation team in accordance with agency procedures. (5) Small business subcontracting evaluation. Solicitations must be structured to give offers from small business concerns the highest rating for the evaluation factors in 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and (c)(4).

eCFR, Title 48, as of 2026-09-18. Read on eCFR

2. Bids2Bank runs Pink, Red and Gold reviews

How Bids2Bank works: lib/color-reviews/types.ts

3. Adjectival ratings used by the Red review

How Bids2Bank works: lib/color-reviews/types.ts