rfp-responder

Purpose

Help Bid Managers, Proposal Leads, and Directors of Sales answer five questions at the response-strategy moment:

1. What is this RFP actually asking? (parse sections, tag every requirement MANDATORY / WEIGHTED / NICE-TO-HAVE, extract scoring criteria, surface deadlines and format constraints)
2. What is our true fit? (proof-point matrix per requirement: STRONG / PARTIAL / GAP, each backed by a verifiable source — case study, certification, customer quote, technical attestation, benchmark)
3. What is our win-theme strategy? (Shipley method: 3-5 themes that ladder up across requirements, not generic value-prop bullets)
4. What is our realistic winrate? (Shipley-derived factor model: fit, incumbent, relationship strength, decision-criteria alignment, late-entry, competitor count, deal size — produces estimate + confidence band)
5. Should we bid? (deterministic verdict: BID / PARTNER-BID / NO-BID with named factors driving the call)

The skill surfaces GAPs explicitly. Leadership decides whether to close them, partner around them, or no-bid. It never invents claims.

When to use

• A 30+ page RFP / RFI / RFQ has landed with a 7-14 day response deadline
• A security questionnaire (SIG, CAIQ, custom-buyer) needs structured Q&A — not prose
• The team is preparing a bid / no-bid review and needs a defensible winrate estimate
• Sales Engineering has a proof-point library but no system to map proofs to requirements
• Leadership wants to see fit % (STRONG / PARTIAL / GAP) before committing pursuit budget
• A late-entry opportunity needs honest assessment of the relationship deficit

Do not use for:

• Free-form proposal narrative authoring → business-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer
• Contract redline AFTER award → c-level-advisor/general-counsel-advisor
• Marketing collateral / category content → marketing-skill/*
• Discount approval on the awarded deal → commercial/deal-desk
• Pricing-model design for a new product → commercial/pricing-strategist

Workflow

Step 1 — Parse the RFP

Drop the RFP markdown / text into scripts/rfp_parser.py. Output: structured JSON listing every requirement, tagged MANDATORY / WEIGHTED / NICE-TO-HAVE based on cue words (must / shall = MANDATORY; should / weighted scoring numbers = WEIGHTED; may / preferred / desired = NICE-TO-HAVE). Captures section structure, scoring criteria if disclosed, deadline, submission format constraints.

python scripts/rfp_parser.py --input rfp.md --output json > parsed.json

Step 2 — Score fit per requirement

Fill assets/rfp_intake_template.md with your proof-point library (each proof tagged with type + verifiable source + which requirement-tags it covers) and proposed win-themes. Feed parsed RFP + intake into scripts/response_drafter.py. Output: proof-point matrix per requirement with STRONG / PARTIAL / GAP, win-theme injection, GAP audit.

python scripts/response_drafter.py --input draft_input.json --output markdown > matrix.md

Hard rule: GAP requirements are surfaced, never invented around. Leadership reads the GAP audit and decides: close the gap, partner-bid, or no-bid.

Step 3 — Apply win-theme strategy

Shipley method: 3-5 themes that span requirements. Each theme answers "why us over the incumbent / competitor on the criteria the buyer named." response_drafter.py shows which themes thread through which requirements — a theme appearing in <2 requirements is decorative, not strategic, and gets flagged.

Step 4 — Estimate winrate

Feed deal context (fit %, incumbent strength, relationship, decision-criteria alignment, late-entry, competitor count, deal size vs. average) into scripts/winrate_predictor.py. Output: Shipley-derived estimate 0-100% + confidence band + factor breakdown + BID / PARTNER-BID / NO-BID verdict.

python scripts/winrate_predictor.py --input deal_context.json --profile enterprise-software --output markdown

No-bid threshold: estimate < 20% triggers automatic no-bid recommendation.

Step 5 — Decide

Take parsed RFP + proof-point matrix + GAP audit + winrate estimate into the go / no-go review. Skill does not commit pursuit budget — leadership does.

Scripts

• scripts/rfp_parser.py — section + requirement extractor (regex + cue-word heuristics, stdlib only)
• scripts/response_drafter.py — proof-point matrix + win-theme injection + GAP audit
• scripts/winrate_predictor.py — Shipley-derived factor model + bid/no-bid verdict, industry-profile-tuned

All scripts: stdlib only (argparse, json, sys, pathlib, re, collections, statistics). --help and --sample work on all three.

References

• references/shipley_method_canon.md — Shipley Proposal Guide v6, Shipley Capture Guide, APMP BoK, Tom Sant, Tom Searcy + Henry DeVries, Strategic Proposals research, Larry Newman
• references/rfp_strategy_canon.md — FAR, GSA, Forrester, Gartner, Bain, McKinsey, B2B International on RFP win-rates and buyer behavior
• references/rfp_anti_patterns.md — Shipley failure modes, APMP cases, Strategic Proposals research, federal loss reviews, MIT Sloan, Bain commercial-discipline, Gartner

Assumptions

• The RFP is the ground truth. If the buyer asked it, answer it — in the order they asked, in the format they specified. Re-organizing for narrative flow is for proposals, not RFPs.
• Proof points must be verifiable. A claim is only as strong as the case study, certification, customer reference, or technical attestation backing it. Unsourced claims become GAPs.
• Win-themes are buyer-side, not seller-side. "We're the leader in X" is a marketing claim; "Your operations team reduces incident MTTR by 60% with the same headcount" is a win-theme. Shipley canon, not optional.
• Winrate estimates are directional. The model is a discipline tool to force honest pursuit-qualification — not an oracle. Confidence band always wider than the point estimate suggests.
• Industry profiles tune base rates — government RFPs reward compliance discipline; enterprise SaaS rewards reference accounts; healthcare rewards regulatory + security depth.
• Late entry is a structural disadvantage. Entering after the RFP issued, with no relationship history, drops base rate ~15%. The skill names this, doesn't hide it.

Anti-patterns

• Inventing a proof point to fill a GAP. Hard rule violation. GAPs surface for leadership decision, not for prose-laundering. See references/rfp_anti_patterns.md.
• Responding to every RFP. Without a qualified bid / no-bid gate, the team burns capacity on <20% winrate pursuits and loses the 50%+ pursuits to lack of focus. Bain commercial-discipline research.
• Generic response with no win-theme. A proposal that could be sent verbatim by any competitor is decorative. Shipley failure mode #1.
• Missing a mandatory disqualifier late. FedRAMP / HIPAA / ISO 27001 / SOC 2 / on-shore data residency caught on Day 12 of a 14-day response = wasted pursuit. Parser surfaces these on Day 1.
• Answering the question YOU wanted asked. RFP responder discipline: answer what they asked, in their words, in their order. Re-framing belongs in cover letters, not in the compliance matrix.
• No compliance matrix. Every requirement should map to a response section + page number. Evaluators score on a matrix; respondents who don't provide one self-disqualify on traceability.
• Late-entry without acknowledging the relationship deficit. Entering cold against an incumbent with a 3-year relationship and no champion = sub-20% winrate. Pretending otherwise wastes Sales Engineering capacity.
• Treating WEIGHTED requirements like MANDATORY. Score-weighted requirements reward depth on the high-weight items, not uniform mediocrity across all. Shipley capture method.

Distinct from

• business-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer — free-form narrative proposals where YOU set the structure (executive brief