Pattern-matching across 162 procurements reveals six distinct approaches states are taking. Knowing your target state's archetype tells you which proposal narrative will land.
Aggregated from 44 RFP scoring rubrics where evaluation criteria were disclosed in procurement documents. Shows the average weight given to each criterion category across all analyzed RFPs.
| Criterion | Avg. Weight | Signal | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainability plan & long-term viability | 22% | States are burned by projects that vanish post-grant | 15–30% | |
| Outcomes measurement & evaluation approach | 20% | Must show how you will prove impact, not just deliver services | 10–25% | |
| Organizational capacity & team experience | 18% | Rural-specific experience weighted heavily over general healthcare | 15–25% | |
| Community partnerships & local engagement | 17% | MOUs and letters of support from CBOs are table-stakes | 10–22% | |
| Work plan feasibility & timeline | 14% | States want realistic milestones with interim deliverables | 10–20% | |
| Budget reasonableness & cost efficiency | 9% | Lowest-weighted criterion — cost competition is not the game | 5–15% |
Pattern observed in 12 states: states begin with an assessment phase, then follow with a transformation contract awarded preferentially to the same organization. Winning the assessment is the strategic objective, not the end goal.