A capability statement is more useful when each important claim has a clear subject, scope and supporting source. Build the evidence record before compressing it into marketing copy. That makes it easier to answer a buyer’s follow-up without overstating what the company, a partner or a past project establishes.
This worksheet is a writing and review method. It is not a required government form.
Make each claim specific enough to check
“We support aerospace manufacturing” is broad. “Our team performed the stated machining operation on the identified part family at this facility during the documented project” is easier to evaluate, provided the underlying evidence supports it.
Specificity can reveal a limit. A project performed by a former employer is experience of the named people, not automatically past performance of the current company. A parent company’s award is not automatically an award to a subsidiary.
Build the evidence table
| Claim category | Supporting material | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Technical work | Relevant project record, test or product documentation | What exact operation or result was demonstrated? |
| Participation role | Contract, permitted customer reference or source-resolved award record | Was the entity the prime, subcontractor, manufacturer or distributor? |
| Certification | Current certificate and scope | Which entity, site, activity and dates are covered? |
| Delivery | Records supporting the stated delivery result | Does the evidence support this result rather than a general reliability claim? |
| Capacity | Current, supported operational information | Is this demonstrated capacity or a forecast? |
| Registration | Current entity and identifier record | Does it match the entity making the claim? |
The downloadable CSV adds source date, limitation, reviewer and approved wording fields. It includes one clearly hypothetical example and blank rows.
Keep public records in their lane
SAM.gov registration helps identify the entity. A registration record is not proof of the manufacturing work described in a capability statement. NAICS classifications organize business establishments. A matching code is a discovery clue, not a technical demonstration.
Similarly, a public award record can support a carefully scoped statement about observed award activity. It does not, by itself, prove current capacity, successful delivery or permission to share customer details.
Work a hypothetical claim
Suppose a company wants to say “qualified for all controlled defense manufacturing.” Its evidence is a JCP certification and one completed machining project.
The review should split the claim. JCP certification supports the access-related fact within its scope. The project supports the specific work performed. Neither establishes qualification for every controlled defense manufacturing requirement. The revised statement should identify each fact separately and avoid the universal conclusion.
Approve the words, not just the attachment
A source file can be authentic while the sentence built from it is too broad. Have the responsible reviewer approve the actual wording, scope and date. Set a review trigger for expiration, a facility change, a changed role or new technical evidence.
Where the statement concerns compliance, Deep Fathom can demonstrate its assessment and evidence workflows. Broader marketing and technical claims remain your team’s responsibility. Explore compliance evidence reuse.
Continue with registration versus eligibility and prototype maturity claims.