rfp_responder v1.0.0

name: "rfp_responder" description: "Run a winning RFP response end to end: shred the solicitation into a compliance matrix, make a disciplined bid/no-bid call, write win themes with proof points, backward-schedule the response, draft compliant sections, and run color-team review gates (Pink, Red, Gold) before submission. Use whenever an agent needs to answer an RFP, RFI, or RFQ, check a draft for compliance gaps, or score a proposal like an evaluator."

RFP Responder

Purpose

The full workflow for answering requests for proposals: break the solicitation into discrete requirements, map each one to a proposal section, prove why you win, draft the response, and review it the way evaluators score it. One losing bid costs more than a firm no-bid, so this skill starts with the decision to pursue and ends with the debrief.

Workflow

Step 1 — Shred the solicitation

Read the entire RFP package: instructions (Section L in US federal bids), evaluation criteria (Section M), statement of work, forms, attachments, and every amendment. Extract each requirement verbatim and in document order into the compliance matrix (assets/compliance_matrix.csv): RFP ref, eval ref, SOW ref, proposal section, heading, page limit, owner, response location, status.

Flag pass/fail minimums and every "shall" and "must". If a requirement has no owner and no section, it is a gap, not a detail. This step is where most lost bids die, so do it before anyone drafts a word.

Step 2 — Bid/no-bid decision

Answer three questions: Is it real? Can we win? Do we want it? Score 1-5 on: pre-RFP relationship, requirement fit, price-to-win position, capacity to pursue, strategic alignment. A weak score is a no-bid, and a no-bid is a good outcome. Record the verdict on one page with the evidence, not vibes.

Step 3 — Win themes

Write 3 to 5 win themes. Each theme must fill every column of the worksheet (assets/win_theme_worksheet.md): Theme, Feature, Benefit, Discriminator, Proof Point, Sections used. A theme without a proof point is a slogan; a theme whose discriminator competitors can also claim is filler. Ghost competitor weaknesses without naming them. Tie each theme to the weighted evaluation criteria, not to your favorite features.

Step 4 — Plan and schedule

Backward-schedule from the submission deadline. Lock the annotated outline, section owners, and draft-due dates. Reserve about 10% of the schedule for production and proofreading. Draft strategic questions for the procurement officer and submit them before the Q&A deadline (clarify ambiguity; never reveal your approach). Plan to submit a day early. Never submit in the final hour, and make no last-minute changes unless skipping them would cause non-compliance.

Step 5 — Draft the response

Write sections against the compliance matrix, not against a blank page. Every section opens in the customer's voice: their problem, their words, then your answer. Past performance becomes evidence packs: named project, scope, quantified outcome, contact if allowed. Boilerplate is fine only if it contradicts nothing in this solicitation; when it conflicts, the solicitation wins. Write the executive summary last, after every section is done, so it summarizes the actual proposal.

Step 6 — Run the color-team gates

Review in order, with a different hat each time. Each gate's checklist is in references/color_teams.md; findings must be specific, actionable edits with tracked closure before the next gate.

• Blue (bid strategy): themes, approach, pricing stance before writing starts.
• Pink (~30% draft): structure and compliance. Does the draft follow the matrix? Are win themes present? Any fatal flaws?
• Red (near-final): score the draft as the evaluator would, against the actual criteria. Compliance and persuasion only; ignore commas, trained editors proofread after red team.
• Green (cost): pricing logic and realism; cost narrative must align with the technical narrative.
• Gold (executive): final sign-off on win themes, price, and messaging.
• White (production): grammar, formatting, consistency, page limits, signed forms, portal mechanics tested.

Review early. Late reviews leave no time to fix anything.

Step 7 — Submit and debrief

Final sweep: every shall/must accounted for, every evaluation criterion answered, page counts under limits, all math verified, forms signed, acronyms defined on first use. Submit with a buffer. After the award decision, request the official evaluator debrief where allowed, on wins as well as losses. Feed the lessons into your answer library and your bid/no-bid calibration for next time.

Output Contract

• compliance_matrix.csv — every requirement mapped to a section, owner, and response location, all statuses verified.
• proposal_plan.md — bid/no-bid verdict with evidence, win themes, response calendar, questions for procurement.
• Section drafts — each traceable to its compliance-matrix row.
• Review packets per gate — findings as actionable edits, closure tracked.
• Final proposal package — submitted on time, within page limits, with no unanswered requirement.

Operating Rules

1. No requirement exists outside the compliance matrix. If it is not in the matrix, it will not be in the proposal.
2. Compliance is pass/fail; persuasion is scored. One missed "shall" beats five great win themes.
3. Win themes appear in every section they were assigned to, backed by quantified proof, or they are cut.
4. Reviewers score and advise; they do not rewrite. The writing team owns the fixes.
5. Customer voice first, company voice never. Answer "why us?" from their perspective.
6. Never invent past performance, numbers, or quotes. Unverifiable claims are cut, not softened.