Can a Ranking Form be signed electronically?

Yes. Electronic signatures are valid for most transactions under the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. ch. 96) and UETA where adopted, provided intent, consent, attribution, and retention requirements are met.

When do I need stronger signer authentication?

Use stronger authentication when the evaluation affects regulated procurements, contains sensitive personal data, or will be relied on in disputes; stronger methods include SMS codes, knowledge-based checks, or multi-factor authentication.

Are handwritten initials required for page acknowledgements?

Not usually. Initials and signatures can be captured electronically if the system records intent and attribution; specify required initials in the template and enforce via field validation.

How should I handle scoring disputes?

Document a clear dispute window and process in the form instructions, preserve original submissions, and retain the audit trail to support any re-review or remediation.

Do ranking results need notarization or witnesses?

Ordinarily no for standard internal evaluations. Notarization or witnesses may be required only where state law or contract terms demand formal execution; check applicable state rules.

How long must completed Ranking Forms be retained?

Retention depends on context; follow applicable standards such as IRS rules (3 years), HIPAA (6 years for PHI), or specific procurement policies which may require 7 years or longer.

Ranking Form

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

RANKING FORM & SELECTION AGREEMENT

Client Name: Project Title:

Whereas

WHEREAS, the Client has issued a solicitation or request for proposals to obtain services or goods described in the Project Title, and proposers have submitted responses subject to the evaluation criteria set forth by the Client; and

WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee has reviewed proposals in accordance with the published evaluation methodology and now records the ranked results, the recommended award, and related selection terms in this Ranking Form & Selection Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the parties intend this document to both memorialize the committee's ranking of proposers and to set preliminary selection terms with the entity recommended for award, subject to final contract negotiation and approval.

Instructions

Enter scores and weights for each evaluation criterion. For each proposer list the raw score (numeric), apply the criterion weight, and compute the weighted score. Totals determine ranking. Provide concise rationale for ranking in the Comments field. All fields are subject to verification and may be used as a basis for award.

Scope of Work

Describe the scope of the contract or services to be awarded:

Evaluation Criteria and Weights

Provide the evaluation criteria used to score proposals. Each criterion must include a weight expressed as a percentage. Total weight must equal 100%.

Criterion 1:

Criterion 2:

Criterion 3:

Proposal Rankings

Complete one row per proposer. Provide total weighted score and recommended rank.

Proposer A — Name Primary Contact / Address

Evaluator Comments

Proposer B — Name Primary Contact / Address

Evaluator Comments

Proposer C — Name Primary Contact / Address

Evaluator Comments

Payment Terms (Preliminary)

Proposed Contract Amount:

Payment Schedule and Conditions

Late Payment Fee:

Term and Termination

Contract Start Date: Contract End Date:

Termination for Convenience: The Client may terminate the award for convenience upon giving written notice to the selected proposer. Notice Period (days):

Confidentiality

All evaluation materials, proposals, scores, and committee deliberations are confidential to the extent permitted by law. By signing below, the parties acknowledge that confidential information disclosed in connection with the procurement will be treated in accordance with applicable confidentiality obligations and will not be used for any purpose other than evaluation and award negotiation.

Evaluator acknowledges confidentiality:

Yes, I acknowledge and will comply with confidentiality obligations.

Conflict of Interest

Evaluators must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Disclosed conflicts will be evaluated to determine whether recusal or mitigation is required.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Governing Law; Entire Agreement

Governing Law: This Ranking Form & Selection Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state identified below. Governing State:

Entire Agreement: This document, together with any final executed contract, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations and understandings, except that the final contract will govern performance terms upon execution.

Certification

I certify that the evaluations and rankings recorded in this form are complete, accurate, and were made in accordance with the prescribed evaluation methodology. I further certify that I have disclosed any conflicts of interest and complied with confidentiality obligations.

Evaluator Printed Name: Evaluator Title:

Client / Organization:

By:

Date:

Selected Proposer / Vendor:

By:

Date:

What a Ranking Form Is and where it's used

A Ranking Form is a structured evaluation template used to compare, score, and prioritize candidates, vendors, projects, or proposals using consistent criteria and numeric or categorical scores. Organizations use Ranking Forms in procurement, hiring, grant review, vendor selection, and internal project prioritization to document decision rationale, produce auditable results, and reduce subjective variability across reviewers. A well-designed Ranking Form defines criteria, scoring weights, tie-break rules, reviewer identity, and the effective date for the assessment, enabling consistent aggregation and defensible selection decisions.

Why a clear Ranking Form matters

A consistent Ranking Form improves repeatability, reduces bias, and preserves an auditable record of decisions which is useful for procurement compliance and dispute resolution. It clarifies scoring methodology for reviewers and stakeholders while making the selection process more transparent.

Who completes and relies on a Ranking Form

Typical users complete, review, or rely on Ranking Forms at different stages of selection and approval.

Procurement teams and contracting officers who evaluate supplier proposals and document award rationale for audits and internal controls.
Hiring managers and HR panels who score applicants against role criteria and document interview results for compliance and fairness.
Program managers and grant reviewers who prioritize projects based on weighted criteria and available funding.

Multiple reviewers, final approvers, and audit teams may retain completed Ranking Forms as evidence of sound decision making and compliance with procurement or HR policies.

Step-by-step: completing a Ranking Form

Follow these steps in order to populate, review, and finalize a Ranking Form so results are auditable and defensible.

01

Define scope: Confirm the purpose, population, and decision criteria before scoring begins.
02

Assign weights: Set and document criterion weights so reviewers use the same scoring scale.
03

Score items: Each evaluator enters scores and comments per criterion in the fillable fields.
04

Aggregate & sign: Calculate totals, document tie-breaks, and collect signatures from final approvers.

Typical workflow for eSubmitting a Ranking Form

This sequence describes how a Ranking Form moves from creation to final record with an audit trail and reviewer authentication.

Create Template: Author places fields and scoring formulas in the form.
Distribute to Reviewers: Send individual signing or score requests to evaluators.
Review and Sign: Reviewers authenticate, complete fields, and sign where required.
Finalize Record: Collect certificates and store the completed form in records.

Configuring an electronic Ranking Form workflow

Use these settings to set up an online workflow that enforces order, calculation, and authentication rules.

Field	Configuration
Score field type	Numeric input with validation
Weight field type	Percentage with sum check
Conditional comments	Required when score below threshold
Signer authentication	Email link, SMS code, or stronger

Technical and integration considerations

Determine platform capabilities needed for secure signature, calculations, and integrations before distributing digital Ranking Forms.

File formats: PDF and DOCX supported
Integrations: Connect to CRMs and cloud storage
Authentication: Supports SMS, email, and MFA

Ensure the chosen platform supports audit trails, preserves field-level data for export, and integrates with your document repository or procurement system for retention and compliance.

Common preparation errors to avoid

Undefined criteria or weights that allow reviewers to apply inconsistent scoring and make aggregation meaningless without normalization.
Using free-text scores without numeric fields, which prevents automated totals and increases transcription errors during analysis.
Failing to capture evaluator identity or date, undermining the ability to resolve conflicts or demonstrate reviewer accountability in audits.
Not documenting tie-break rules or conflict-of-interest disclosures, leaving selection rationale incomplete and legally vulnerable.

Risks and compliance consequences

Procurement audit risk: Missing documentation may trigger audit findings

Contract challenge: Incomplete records increase protest risk

Data privacy: Sensitive scoring data may be regulated

Retention failures: Improper retention can violate policy

Authentication gaps: Weak signer proof undermines attribution

Calculation errors: Incorrect formulas may invalidate results

Security and compliance checklist for electronic Ranking Forms

Encryption: TLS 1.2/1.3 in transit

Data at rest: AES-256 encryption

Audit trail: Timestamps and IP logging

Regulatory compliance: ESIGN and UETA support

HIPAA-ready: BAA required for PHI

Access controls: Role-based permissions

Essential elements of a professional Ranking Form

Include these features to make the Ranking Form effective, reproducible, and defensible across reviewers and audits.

Defined criteria

Clearly state each evaluation criterion and its measurement so reviewers apply consistent judgments and avoid ambiguous scoring.

Weights and formulas

Include weight fields and a weighted-total formula to automate ranking; document how rounding and ties are handled for transparency.

Comment fields

Provide optional or required comment boxes for qualitative rationale tied to low or high scores to support decisions.

Evaluator identity

Capture evaluator name, role, and signature to establish attribution and accountability for each score entry.

Versioning

Track template version, effective date, and change history so results can be linked to the correct rubric.

Supporting docs

Attach proposals, resumes, or bids as exhibits and reference them in the form to preserve the evaluation context.

Timelines and expected processing steps

Establish clear deadlines and turnaround targets for reviewers, final approvers, and records staff to ensure timely decisions and proper archiving.

Reviewer turnaround:

Typical deadline: 3–7 business days per reviewer

Aggregation window:

Allow 1–2 business days to consolidate and verify scores

Dispute period:

Specify an internal 5–10 day window to raise scoring disputes

Final approval:

Set a firm sign-off deadline to avoid selection delays

Record retention start:

Retention begins from the effective decision date

Key milestones from distribution to archival

Track these milestones to maintain control over the evaluation lifecycle and ensure audit readiness.

01

Template finalization

Approve rubric and weights before circulation.

02

Reviewer assignment

Notify reviewers and issue forms.

03

Score collection

Collect completed evaluations and comments.

04

Final record filing

Aggregate results, obtain approvals, and archive.

Ranking Form vs other evaluation formats

Compare common format choices to determine which best meets audit, calculation, and collaboration needs.

Criteria	Format	Ranking Form
Ease of use	high	moderate
Calculated totals	built-in	requires formulas
Audit trail		depends on platform
Best use case	procurement/hiring	complex multi-factor scoring

eSignature vendor pricing and capabilities for Ranking Forms

Compare core pricing and capability dimensions across leading eSignature vendors; signNow appears first as a listed vendor 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	Varies	Varies	Varies	Varies
Bulk Send	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Audit Trail	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
HIPAA Compliant	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Envelope Cap	No envelope cap	100 envelopes/user/year	Varies by plan	Varies by plan	Varies by plan

Frequently asked questions about using a Ranking Form

Answers to common questions about legality, eSignatures, format choices, and recordkeeping for Ranking Forms.

Need help? Contact support

Can a Ranking Form be signed electronically?
Yes. Electronic signatures are valid for most transactions under the ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. ch. 96) and UETA where adopted, provided intent, consent, attribution, and retention requirements are met.
When do I need stronger signer authentication?
Use stronger authentication when the evaluation affects regulated procurements, contains sensitive personal data, or will be relied on in disputes; stronger methods include SMS codes, knowledge-based checks, or multi-factor authentication.
Are handwritten initials required for page acknowledgements?
Not usually. Initials and signatures can be captured electronically if the system records intent and attribution; specify required initials in the template and enforce via field validation.
How should I handle scoring disputes?
Document a clear dispute window and process in the form instructions, preserve original submissions, and retain the audit trail to support any re-review or remediation.
Do ranking results need notarization or witnesses?
Ordinarily no for standard internal evaluations. Notarization or witnesses may be required only where state law or contract terms demand formal execution; check applicable state rules.
How long must completed Ranking Forms be retained?
Retention depends on context; follow applicable standards such as IRS rules (3 years), HIPAA (6 years for PHI), or specific procurement policies which may require 7 years or longer.

be ready to get more

Join over 28 million airSlate SignNow users

Sign Now