AI prompts for the work around the RFP

You are a programme manager preparing a Drupal procurement. Below are my raw notes from stakeholder interviews for {ORGANISATION}.

Extract them into three lists: (1) decisions that have actually been made, with the person who made them; (2) stated requirements that are still preferences; (3) open questions that block scoping.

Do not add anything that is not in the notes. Where the notes are ambiguous, quote the sentence and mark it ambiguous.

NOTES:
{PASTE_NOTES}

Using the decisions and requirements above, write a scope boundary for a Drupal request for proposals.

Produce two lists: IN SCOPE as 6-10 work packages, each with a deliverable and an owner on the buyer side; OUT OF SCOPE as 5-8 items a vendor might otherwise assume, each with a one-line reason.

Keep every item priceable by a vendor who has never met us. Flag anything that depends on an unresolved decision with [BLOCKED: decision].

Given this scope, identify the three most likely ways this project fails: the specific decisions that get deferred, the dependencies that slip, and the assumptions that turn into change requests.

For each failure mode give: the warning signal we would see first, the clause in the RFP that would reduce the risk, and the question to ask vendors that exposes whether they have handled it before.

Be concrete about Drupal: content migration volume, configuration management, editorial workflow change, integration ownership, and hosting ownership are common causes.

Write the list of questions we must answer internally before publishing this RFP, sorted by who can answer them (executive, finance, IT/security, content team, legal).

For each question: why the RFP is weaker without the answer, a recommended default if we cannot get one, and the deadline relative to an RFP publish date of {DATE}.

Keep it under 15 questions. Ruthlessly merge anything that would be answered by the same meeting.

Here are our project goals for {ORGANISATION}:
{PASTE_GOALS}

Rewrite each as 3-5 numbered requirements of the form "R{n}.{m} The platform must ..." such that each requirement could be verified from a written proposal or a demonstration.

Rules: no adjectives that cannot be tested, no vendor names, one obligation per requirement, and every requirement must state the standard it is measured against (a number, a standard, or a named method).

Review the requirements below as a hostile evaluator. For each one, state: how a vendor could claim compliance without actually complying, what evidence would prove compliance, and whether the requirement is testable as written.

Then rewrite the five weakest requirements so that the evidence standard is explicit.

REQUIREMENTS:
{PASTE_REQUIREMENTS}

For each requirement below, add an acceptance criterion in the form "Accepted when ..." naming the artefact or test that proves it (a report, a demonstration step, a document, a measurement).

Where an acceptance criterion depends on something the buyer must supply, say which.

REQUIREMENTS:
{PASTE_REQUIREMENTS}

Here is the table of contents of our Drupal RFP:
{PASTE_TOC}

Compare it against what a vendor needs in order to produce a fixed price and a credible plan. List the missing sections in priority order, say what each missing section prevents the vendor from pricing, and draft the first two clauses of each missing section.

Assume the vendor has never worked with us and cannot ask questions until {QUESTION_DEADLINE}.

We are procuring Drupal hosting and support. Our constraints are:
- Hosting model: {OWN_CLOUD | VENDOR_MANAGED | ON_PREM | UNDECIDED}
- Compliance obligations: {LIST}
- Traffic profile: {PEAK_REQUESTS_AND_CONCURRENCY}
- Content volume: {NODES_MEDIA_LANGUAGES}
- Recovery expectations: {RPO_AND_RTO}

Write hosting requirements grouped under: ownership, environments and deployment, performance and caching, backup and recovery, security, observability and support, exit and portability.

Format each as "R7.{n} The supplier must ...". Every clause must be verifiable from a document or a demonstration. Do not name any vendor or product suite.

For each hosting clause below, add a second sentence beginning "Evidence required:" naming the specific document, report, screenshot or demonstration that would prove compliance.

Reject vague evidence: "confirmation from the supplier" is not evidence. Prefer artefacts that already exist for other clients.

CLAUSES:
{PASTE_CLAUSES}

Read these hosting clauses as a supplier whose business model depends on keeping the customer on its own platform. Identify every clause that threatens that model, and every gap where a supplier could satisfy the letter of the clause while keeping the customer locked in.

For each gap, propose tighter wording. Pay particular attention to data export formats, credential ownership, infrastructure-as-code handover, and professional services that are only available from the incumbent.

CLAUSES:
{PASTE_CLAUSES}

Build a comparison grid for evaluating hosting responses. Rows: our hosting clauses. Columns: {VENDOR_A}, {VENDOR_B}, {VENDOR_C}.

For each cell, define what "complies", "partial" and "does not comply" look like in terms of evidence, so three evaluators score consistently.

Add a final section listing the five questions that most reliably separate a genuinely portable offering from a rebranded managed platform.

We are buying Drupal development and hosting. Our priorities, in order, are: {LIST_PRIORITIES}.

Propose 7-9 evaluation criteria with percentage weights summing to 100. For each: what it measures, what evidence in a proposal earns a high score, and what the risk is of weighting it too heavily.

Constraints: price must be between 15 and 30 per cent. Accessibility must appear. Hosting must appear separately from the build. Explain any weight above 20 per cent.

For each criterion below, write a scoring definition for 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0.

Each definition must describe observable evidence, not sentiment. A 5 must require something a reader can point at in the proposal. A 0 must describe a disqualifying absence.

CRITERIA:
{PASTE_CRITERIA_WITH_WEIGHTS}

Write the pass/fail gates for this procurement: the conditions under which a proposal is not scored at all, regardless of quality.

Cover legal standing, insurance, named personnel, comparable delivery, security assurance, and ability to meet the required hosting model. For each gate: the exact evidence required, who checks it, and what happens if evidence arrives late.

Keep gates to things that are genuinely non-negotiable; anything arguable belongs in the weighted score.

Using the rubric and weights below, simulate three plausible outcomes: a strong-but-expensive proposal, a cheap-but-thin proposal, and a balanced proposal.

For each, show the arithmetic, the resulting rank, and the sentence an unsuccessful bidder would use in an appeal. Then identify which weight, if changed by five points, would most change the outcome, and whether that change is defensible.

RUBRIC:
{PASTE_RUBRIC}

Below is a vendor proposal for a Drupal project. Build a table of every substantive claim, with columns: claim, section reference, type (fact / assertion / commitment), and what evidence is offered (document, reference, metric, none).

Then list the ten claims with the highest impact on delivery risk that have no evidence behind them.

PROPOSAL:
{PASTE_PROPOSAL_TEXT}

Score this proposal against the rubric below. For every criterion: give a score, quote the passage that justifies it (or state that no passage exists), and note the single question that would most reduce your uncertainty.

Do not reward length or design. If the proposal does not address a criterion, score accordingly and say so explicitly.

RUBRIC:
{PASTE_RUBRIC}

PROPOSAL:
{PASTE_PROPOSAL_TEXT}

Here are my scored evaluations of {N} finalist proposals against the same rubric:
{PASTE_SCORED_SUMMARIES}

Produce a comparison that answers: where do they genuinely differ, where are they saying the same thing in different words, and which differences actually matter for delivery risk over three years?

End with the three questions that would most change the ranking if answered badly.

Based on the gaps and unsupported claims below, write clarification questions for {VENDOR}.

Rules: one question per issue, no compound questions, each answerable in under 200 words, and each phrased so that a vague answer is visibly vague. Group them by topic and mark which are genuinely disqualifying if unanswered.

GAPS:
{PASTE_GAPS}

Write a 20-minute reference-call script for a client who bought a comparable Drupal project from this vendor.

Ask questions that produce specific, checkable answers rather than testimonials: what was the original estimate versus final cost, what changed, how the vendor handled a missed deadline, who did the actual work versus who sold it, how the handover went, and what they would write differently in the contract.

Include the three answers that should worry us most, and what to do if we hear them.

We intend to award to {VENDOR} subject to a best-and-final round. Our leverage is {LEVERAGE}. Our concerns are {CONCERNS}.

Draft the asks for this round, each tied to a specific concern: contract terms, evidence, staffing commitments, phasing, payment milestones, or price structure.

For each ask, state what we will concede in exchange and what we will walk away over. Do not invent concessions we have not offered.

Draft the note to unsuccessful bidders for this procurement.

It must: thank them specifically, state the score against the published criteria without disclosing other bids, name the one area where their proposal was weakest, and keep the door open for future work.

It must not: imply the decision was purely price, contradict the published criteria, or invite an appeal through ambiguity. Keep it under 150 words.