Can the template be signed electronically?

Yes. Electronic signatures are legally enforceable under the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §7001) and UETA in most states when intent, consent, attribution, and retention are present.

Do reviewers need to be authenticated?

Use institutional SSO or at minimum verified email plus timestamp. Stronger authentication reduces repudiation risk for high-stakes assessments.

Is a notary required for grading records?

Generally no; notarization is not typical for grading. Obtain notary services only where state law or institutional rules specifically require notarized acceptance.

What if a submitted name doesn’t match records?

Record the discrepancy in comments, verify identity before finalizing the grade, and follow institutional procedures to resolve mismatches to avoid FERPA issues.

How long should the graded record be kept?

Follow institutional retention policy; retain for accreditation and audit needs and consider federal baselines such as IRC §6501(a) for related financial records.

How can I correct a grading error?

Document the correction with rationale, capture an updated signed record, and preserve the original signed copy alongside the corrected version for auditability.

Electronic Signature
Templates
Miscellaneous
Project Design Grading Template

Project Design Grading Template

This template is fully customizable. Edit the text, fill out the fields, and send it for signature. Give it a try!

Project Design Grading Template

This General Business Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of Effective Date: by and between Client Name: and Contractor Name: .

Recitals

WHEREAS, Client has commissioned Contractor to provide design services for the project titled Project Title: (the "Project"); and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to establish objective grading criteria, a scope of work, payment terms, and other contractual terms by which Contractor will perform design services and Client will evaluate deliverables; and

WHEREAS, the parties intend that this Agreement incorporate a Project Design Grading Template to standardize review, scoring, and approval of each design deliverable.

Scope of Work

Detailed Scope of Work

Design Grading Criteria

The parties agree to apply the following criteria for each graded design deliverable. Scores should be provided on a 0–100 scale and multiplied by the assigned weight to calculate the weighted score. The total weighted score will determine acceptance per the Acceptance Threshold field below.

Acceptance Threshold Criterion — Creativity & Originality Criterion — Technical Accuracy Criterion — Functionality & Usability Criterion — Adherence to Brief & Requirements Criterion — Presentation, Documentation & Deliverables

Payment Terms

Total Contract Amount Payment Schedule Late Payment Fee

Invoices shall be submitted in writing and payment shall be due within Payment Days: days from invoice date. Disputed amounts do not relieve Client of obligation to pay undisputed amounts in a timely manner.

Term and Termination

Term Start Date: . Term End Date: .

Notice Period for Termination Without Cause

Either party may terminate this Agreement for material breach by the other party if the breaching party fails to cure within Cure Period Days: days after written notice. Termination shall not relieve either party of obligations accrued prior to termination, including payment for accepted deliverables.

Confidentiality

Each party (the "Receiving Party") shall keep confidential and not disclose any Confidential Information received from the other party (the "Disclosing Party") except as required for performance of this Agreement. Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, design concepts, trade secrets, business plans, technical data, specifications, and other non-public proprietary information. The Receiving Party shall use at least the same degree of care to protect Confidential Information as it uses to protect its own confidential information, and in no event less than reasonable care. Confidentiality obligations shall survive termination for a period of three (3) years.

Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of without regard to conflict of law principles.

Entire Agreement

This Agreement, together with any attachments and the Project Design Grading Template contained herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, proposals, and communications, whether oral or written. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties.

Additional Provisions

Assignment: Neither party may assign its rights or delegate its duties under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, except to a successor in interest in connection with a sale of substantially all assets or equity.

Remedies: Except as otherwise provided, remedies for breach shall include specific performance, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. The parties acknowledge that monetary damages alone may be inadequate to protect Confidential Information.

Signatures

Client:

By:

Date:

Contractor:

By:

Date:

What the Project Design Grading Template Is and when it’s used

The Project Design Grading Template is a standardized rubric for assessing design deliverables, combining objective criteria, weighted scoring, and structured feedback fields. It organizes project goals, evaluation categories (such as concept, technical execution, usability, documentation, and presentation), point values, and narrative comments so reviewers produce consistent grades. Institutions, course instructors, juries, and project managers use the template to compare submissions, document rationale for scores, and preserve an audit trail for appeals or accreditation reviews. The template supports both printed and electronic completion.

Why a standard grading template improves consistency

A Project Design Grading Template reduces subjectivity by defining criteria and weights up front, speeds review cycles by providing a single form for all reviewers, and creates a defensible record of decisions useful for student feedback, accreditation, or client reporting.

Common users and their roles

Typical users include educators, design leads, review panels, and quality managers who need repeatable scoring across submissions.

Course instructors: Use the rubric to assign final grades and provide structured feedback to students.
Design leads: Apply the template for internal reviews, version control, and acceptance criteria.
External jurors: Use fixed scoring to compare projects fairly during competitions or exhibitions.

The template adapts to classroom grading, client reviews, internal QA, and competition juries by changing weights and comment guidance.

Step-by-step: completing a single grading record

Follow these steps in order to ensure each submitted design is graded consistently and permanently recorded.

01

Open Template: Load the correct rubric version for the course or project.
02

Verify Identity: Confirm student or team names match enrollment records.
03

Apply Criteria: Assign scores per criterion using the defined weightings.
04

Save Record: Save final graded record and export signed copy if required.

Basic review and submission workflow

This flow describes sender, reviewer, and record storage steps for an electronic or paper grading cycle.

Prepare Document: Populate header, criteria, and weightings.
Assign Reviewers: Add reviewer names and expected completion dates.
Collect Signatures: Capture reviewer sign-off and date of completion.
Archive Record: Store final version in designated retention repository.

Configuring the online grading workflow

Configure these fields when setting up an electronic grading workflow to ensure correct routing, authentication, and export settings.

Field	Configuration
Reviewer Order	Sequential or parallel routing
Authentication	Email, SMS code, or institutional SSO
Auto-Reminders	Enable recurring notifications for pending reviews
Export Format	PDF/A or DOCX for archival

Technical distribution and signing options

Choose distribution and signing settings that match your institution's security and usability needs.

File formats: PDF, DOCX, or HTML
Integrations: Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or LMS
Authentication: SSO, email, SMS

Essential security and compliance items to record

Audit trail: Timestamped signer actions

Signer identity: Name and authentication method

File integrity: Tamper-evident PDF

Access control: Role-based permissions

Encryption: TLS 1.2/1.3 in transit

Data at rest: AES-256 encryption

Consequences of incorrect or incomplete grading records

Appeal exposure: Lost due to missing rationale

Accreditation risk: Noncompliance with audit rules

FERPA breach: Unauthorized disclosure risk

Record inadmissible: Unsigned entries invalid

Data loss: Insufficient backups

Late filing: Penalty or grade disputes

Common mistakes to avoid when preparing the template

Using inconsistent criterion names across sections, which prevents automated scoring and causes reviewer confusion during aggregation.
Failing to set or normalize weightings so total does not equal 100 percent, producing skewed final grades and appeal risk.
Entering reviewer names that differ from institutional rosters, complicating identity verification and record matching.
Not preserving an immutable signed copy (audit trail and timestamp), which weakens the defensibility of grades in disputes.

Timelines and deadlines to include on the template

List key dates clearly on the form so students and reviewers understand submission windows, review periods, and final posting times.

Submission Deadline:

Final date and time to accept deliverables

Review Window:

Number of days allocated for grading

Appeal Period:

Days allowed to request re-evaluation

Final Posting:

Date final grades will be published

Record Retention:

Where and how long records are stored

eSignature vendor comparison relevant to grading templates

Compare common commercial eSignature plans for template deployment; signNow is listed first per platform comparison conventions.

	signNow	DocuSign	Adobe Sign	PandaDoc	HelloSign
Starting Price	$8/user/mo	$15/user/mo	$14/user/mo	$19/user/mo	$15/user/mo
Free Trial	7-day free trial	No	No	Yes, limited	Yes, limited
Bulk Send	Yes	Varies by plan	Varies by plan	Yes	No
Audit Trail	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
HIPAA Compliant	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No

Practical examples of template use

These short case arcs show how organizations adapted a grading template to meet specific operational needs and compliance constraints.

Optica Ventures — Academic Program

Optica used a standardized rubric to align external juror scores

Reduced score variance across reviewers
The result was clearer feedback for students, faster adjudication of projects, and a consistent archive for accreditation reviews.

Martin Properties — Client Design Reviews

A property firm replaced ad hoc reviews with a template

Captured reviewer sign-offs and timestamps
This created a defensible approval record for client acceptance and linked deliverables to payment milestones.

Practical tips for accurate and efficient completion

Adopt these practices to reduce errors, speed review cycles, and strengthen the auditability of grade records.

Standardize criterion names

Use fixed criterion labels and definitions across all rubric versions to enable automated aggregation and avoid reviewer confusion.

Require brief justifications

For any score below a threshold, require a short comment explaining the deduction to reduce appeals and clarify expectations.

Use digital sign-off

Capture reviewer identity, timestamp, and authentication method to maintain a verifiable audit trail for each graded record.

Archive immutable copies

Export signed PDFs to institutional storage in PDF/A format and retain per retention policy to support accreditation and dispute resolution.

Frequently asked questions and troubleshooting

Answers to common questions about eSigning, notarization, record corrections, and retention for the Project Design Grading Template.

Need help? Contact support

Can the template be signed electronically?
Yes. Electronic signatures are legally enforceable under the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. §7001) and UETA in most states when intent, consent, attribution, and retention are present.
Do reviewers need to be authenticated?
Use institutional SSO or at minimum verified email plus timestamp. Stronger authentication reduces repudiation risk for high-stakes assessments.
Is a notary required for grading records?
Generally no; notarization is not typical for grading. Obtain notary services only where state law or institutional rules specifically require notarized acceptance.
What if a submitted name doesn’t match records?
Record the discrepancy in comments, verify identity before finalizing the grade, and follow institutional procedures to resolve mismatches to avoid FERPA issues.
How long should the graded record be kept?
Follow institutional retention policy; retain for accreditation and audit needs and consider federal baselines such as IRC §6501(a) for related financial records.
How can I correct a grading error?
Document the correction with rationale, capture an updated signed record, and preserve the original signed copy alongside the corrected version for auditability.

be ready to get more

Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users

Sign Now