Riftur

Close the Gap, Gain the Edge

Evaluate proposals against government and commercial solicitations.

Trusted by teams shipping proposals every week

Compliance

•

Capture

•

Proposal

Start an analysis

Upload a government or commercial solicitation + draft proposal. Riftur will evaluate fit, flag gaps, and surface improvements.

Solicitation Documents

Click to upload

or drag and drop

PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, TXT, CSV

Draft Proposal

Click to upload

or drag and drop

PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, TXT, CSV

Documents are only used to run this analysis. They are not used to train models. Files are encrypted in transit and deleted immediately after processing.

See how Riftur works in under a minute.

Upload government and commercial solicitations with draft proposals.

Review proposal evaluation results, gaps, and recommendations.

Export the gap analysis to Excel.

A proposal review your team can act on immediately.

Riftur turns a solicitation and draft proposal into a scored review that shows what is strong, what is risky, and which fixes will move the submission forward fastest.

Review stages mirror proposal practice

Move from intake and requirement extraction through compliance, evaluator readiness, strategy, evidence, management, risk, production, and recovery planning.

Trace source requirements

Use generated tables that point back to source and reference requirements, draft evidence, coverage status, and gaps.

See risks and gaps clearly

Review risk registers, assumptions, exceptions, technical credibility, ownership, package readiness, and evaluator-readiness issues without hunting through every document.

Work a recovery plan

Use the detailed recovery plan to prioritize fixes, assign owners, and understand which changes can improve the score fastest.

No document retention

Uploaded files are deleted immediately after processing and are not retained on our systems.

No AI model training

Uploaded documents are not used to train or improve our AI models or third-party models.

Encrypted in transit

Uploads are encrypted in transit to help protect files during submission.

Export to Excel

Download the analysis workbook with score summary, source tables, risk findings, and recovery actions for team review.

Score Breakdown

Sample output

Net Score

48%

Top Score Constraints

These are the three stage-level categories costing the most recoverable score percentage. The percentage estimates how much the score could improve if that constraint were fully resolved.

Requirements

42%

11.6% recoverable

Requirements is costing about 11.6% in recoverable score. Requirement Taxonomy, Technical Requirements Matrix, and Management Requirements Matrix show required response elements that are missing or unclear in the draft.

Evidence

43%

8.6% recoverable

Evidence is costing about 8.6% in recoverable score. Evidence and Proof Point Audit, Claim Strength Audit, and Technical Credibility Review show claims that need quantified proof, source citations, and technical support.

Compliance

48%

7.8% recoverable

Compliance is costing about 7.8% in recoverable score. Submission Completeness Review, Administrative Compliance Review, and Section L Instructions Crosswalk show required package artifacts that still need final proof.

Requirement Coverage

289

reqs

Covered: 10% (29)

Partially Covered: 26% (75)

Missing: 47% (136)

Unclear: 17% (49)

Risk Heatmap

Shows how many Risk Register findings fall into each severity and likelihood combination. Likelihood means the estimated chance that the issue will affect evaluation, submission acceptance, or delivery if it is not fixed.

Likelihood

Severity

Low

Medium

High

120

Medium

Low

What Would Improve My Score

Add a response trace for REQ-TECH-014, REQ-MGMT-006, and REQ-ADMIN-003.

+8.1% possible

Details

Owner

Compliance lead

Requirement

REQ-TECH-014, REQ-MGMT-006, REQ-ADMIN-003

Solicitation Source

RFP Section C.3 transition approach; Section L.4 management volume; Attachment J-2 certifications

Proposal Evidence

Missing from draft for REQ-ADMIN-003; transition and staffing references are narrative-only in the draft management volume

Source Tables

Technical Requirements Matrix; Management Requirements Matrix; Administrative Requirements Matrix

Finding

These rows are marked Missing or Unclear because the draft does not show where the transition approach, staffing governance, and signed certification package satisfy the solicitation language.

Completion Standard

Add the exact proposal section, page, and paragraph for each requirement; insert missing response text where no proposal location exists; update coverage status to Covered only when the cited text directly answers the requirement.

Replace unsupported performance claims in the technical approach with measurable proof points.

+7.4% possible

Details

Owner

Volume lead

Requirement

REQ-TECH-009, REQ-TECH-016, REQ-SEC-003, REQ-REPORT-004

Solicitation Source

Core Requirements pages 5-6; Deliverables page 7; security handling requirement

Proposal Evidence

Technical approach discusses RAG, dashboards, and security posture, but lacks verifiable proof for grounding controls, source governance, CUI handling, and report outputs

Source Tables

Evidence and Proof Point Audit; Claim Strength Audit; Technical Credibility Review

Finding

The review flags claims such as rapid onboarding, low-risk migration, and automated quality control because they lack metrics, customer examples, source citations, or technical rationale.

Completion Standard

For each flagged claim, add one quantified result, one source reference, and one explanation of how the method will work for this scope; remove or soften claims that cannot be supported.

Complete the Section L package checklist for forms, certifications, and pricing attachments.

+5.9% possible

Details

Owner

Proposal manager

Requirement

REQ-ADMIN-001, REQ-ADMIN-003, REQ-COST-002

Solicitation Source

Section L submission instructions; forms and certification attachments; price-volume instructions

Proposal Evidence

Missing from draft package checklist; file names, signed forms, and pricing attachments are not tied to final submission artifacts

Source Tables

Submission Completeness Review; Administrative Compliance Review; Forms and Certifications Requirements Matrix; Section L Instructions Crosswalk

Finding

The package is missing a clear crosswalk for required representations, price-volume attachments, file naming, and signature-ready administrative material.

Completion Standard

Create a final package checklist with file name, owner, status, and source instruction for every required artifact; mark each item Ready only after the actual attachment or completed form is present.

Rewrite the opening paragraph of each factor response to mirror the evaluator criteria.

+5.2% possible

Details

Owner

Capture lead

Requirement

REQ-EVAL-002, REQ-TECH-004, REQ-MGMT-002

Solicitation Source

Section M evaluation factors for technical approach, management approach, and confidence of performance

Proposal Evidence

Draft factor responses contain relevant content, but opening paragraphs do not consistently mirror evaluator criteria or place proof early

Source Tables

Evaluator Readiness Review; Evaluation Criteria Traceability; Section M Evaluation Crosswalk

Finding

Factor and subfactor language appears in the solicitation but is not consistently repeated in the draft response headings, opening claims, or proof placement.

Completion Standard

For every factor, start with the evaluator priority, state the proposed response in one sentence, and place the strongest proof point in the first screen of the section.

Resolve high-severity risk rows tied to transition staffing, cost realism, and exception language.

+3.8% possible

Details

Owner

Risk owner

Requirement

REQ-STAFF-004, REQ-COST-003, REQ-CONTRACT-002

Solicitation Source

Staffing plan requirements; cost realism support; assumptions and exceptions instructions

Proposal Evidence

Staffing assumptions, cost inputs, and exception language are present but not resolved with mitigation, ownership, or evaluator-safe wording

Source Tables

Risk Register; Assumptions, Exceptions, and Deviations

Finding

The heatmap concentrates high-likelihood exposure around unresolved staffing assumptions, unclear cost inputs, and deviation language that may create evaluation concern.

Completion Standard

For each High or Medium likelihood risk, add an owner, mitigation, proposal edit, and verification evidence; remove exception language unless it is intentional and approved.

Assign named execution owners and verify final attachment packaging before submission.

+3.4% possible

Details

Owner

Program manager

Requirement

REQ-MGMT-008, REQ-REPORT-004, REQ-ADMIN-005

Solicitation Source

Management approach ownership requirements; reporting deliverables; final package and attachment instructions

Proposal Evidence

Draft names roles in some places, but execution ownership, report deliverables, and final attachment references are not fully traceable

Source Tables

Management Approach Review; Execution Ownership Review; Final Production Readiness Review; Attachment and Packaging Review

Finding

The report finds named roles in some sections but weak ownership links for transition, quality control, reporting, and final packaging readiness.

Completion Standard

Add a responsibility table tying each workstream to a named role, required deliverable, and review date; verify every attachment is referenced in the narrative and present in the final file list.

Requirements

42%

Details

Constrained: the draft still misses or leaves unclear required response elements in the technical, management, and administrative matrices.

Compliance

48%

Details

Constrained: required forms, certifications, pricing references, and instruction crosswalk entries are not yet tied to final package artifacts.

Evaluation Readiness

55%

Details

Needs targeted improvement: several factor responses do not open with the evaluator priority or place proof near the scoring language.

Strategy

60%

Details

Needs targeted improvement: win themes and differentiators are present but not consistently tied to buyer priorities and competitive posture.

Evidence

43%

Details

Constrained: important technical and performance claims lack quantified outcomes, source citations, and credibility support.

Management

56%

Details

Needs targeted improvement: named roles appear in the proposal, but ownership for transition, quality control, reporting, and staffing execution is not explicit enough.

Past Performance

58%

Details

Needs targeted improvement: prior work examples need clearer relevance mapping and stronger outcome proof for the current solicitation.

Risk

32%

Details

High priority: high-likelihood findings remain around staffing assumptions, cost realism, exception language, and unresolved mitigation ownership.

Production

35%

Details

High priority: final attachments, packaging checks, file references, and submission readiness have not been fully verified.

Score Equation

Details

The overall score is a weighted average of stage-level proposal categories. Detailed tables are rolled up into Requirements, Compliance, Evaluation Readiness, Strategy, Evidence, Management, Past Performance, Risk, and Production so the summary reflects the full report without duplicating overlapping findings. Each category receives a 0-100 score, that score is weighted by proposal impact, and the weighted results are added and rounded to the final score. Top Score Constraints are the weighted categories with the largest recoverable point loss.

Scoring Caveats

The score is constrained primarily by Missing, Gap, High risk, and Not Ready findings across requirements, compliance, evidence, management, risk, and production tables.
Section L and Section M are inferred from the solicitation materials and are not explicitly labeled in the source text.
The full populated cost workbook and any unrendered attachments were not directly verifiable from the supplied excerpts, so cost related scoring is conservative.
Presence of a document filename was not treated as proof of completion unless the extracted text also showed the relevant substantive content.
Scores reflect the visible extracted proposal and solicitation content available to the review.