How do you prioritize and categorize proposal review feedback from various sources and stakeholders?

Get the feedback, wherever and whenever possible, in writing. Using a common software for drafts and having reviewers make markups and comments, then merging the documents (retaining the comment owners) gives you the opportunity to see the feedbacks all together and to circle back when there are conflicts. Weigh two major factors: Authority and authoritative. The former comments and changes are from individuals that you have explicit instructions to implement their change, even if you do not 100% agree with them. The latter is for subject matter experts (SME) and the like, whose comments may identify factual and process flaws that need changed. In either case, circling back to the authors to confirm the weight is valid and valuable.

This should be done at proposal kick-off. Identifying who is on the team allows you to identify whose work needs to be reviewed, its priority, and if additional reviewers may be needed. This means if you have a new team member, they may need some extra attention, be encouraging. If you don't have technical knowledge, you may need another SME for reviewing purposes. Subcontractors and others who may be involved in the response also need to have their voices heard. Having scheduled feedback times allows those in other areas to have a deadline - knowing when and how their input is needed reducing interruptions to someone's day.

Technical responses should always be prioritized first. These are the nuts and bolts of the project that will hold a proposal together and win. Key Personnel and Past Performance should come second. Combined these three sections of a proposal are responsible for an average 60% of evaluation criteria. Pricing should be third, even if you don't submit with the response, you should always develop your project costs and rates when you develop your proposal. This accounts for approximately 10% if included with a response. Using a numerical scale for scoring is best as it will allow for more nuanced grading versus high-med-low.

Gathering feedback on the relevant sub-tasks instead of the master document is very handy, especially if you're working from a centralized proposal management workstation. This way, bid managers and contributors can get just the pieces of info they need. This becomes almost the only way of doing it right with complex proposals (several documents, hundreds of pages, etc.). You don't need anything expensive; any flexible tool focused on project management will do (like the ones that allow you to set up views on top of the same data—Kanban, Gantt, Calendar, Tables, etc.), but it makes a great difference.

Artificial intelligence, especially tools that are optimized for this use case of providing feedback on writing and technical matters, are freeing bid managers from these process burdens as it allows for stakeholders to be only involved in critical reviews, saving a lot of time on both sides. For example, some AI tools work as Virtual Color Reviewers or Virtual SMEs.

Instead of overcomplicating the process, before proposal development starts, establish a plan with the project executive (lead) for how feedback will be resolved. IMO, there should be a feedback manager responsible for integrating input for each category: technical, compliance, and grammar. This person will be accountable for ensuring that all feedback is addressed appropriately. These can be different people, but ultimately, there needs to be one person with the final decision-making authority regardless of how many fancy scoring systems are created.