RFP Response Generator

Generate structured, persuasive responses to Requests for Proposals (RFPs), RFIs, and RFQs. Analyzes requirements, maps company capabilities, identifies gaps, and produces compliant response documents.

Trigger

Use when:

• Responding to an RFP, RFI, or RFQ document
• Drafting proposal sections (technical, management, pricing, past performance)
• Analyzing RFP requirements for compliance mapping
• Creating executive summaries or cover letters for proposals
• Reviewing draft responses for completeness and compliance

Inputs

The user provides:

1. RFP document — the solicitation (PDF, text, or key requirements pasted)
2. Company profile — capabilities, past performance, team bios (or a file path)
3. Win themes — key differentiators to emphasize (optional)
4. Page/word limits — formatting constraints (optional)

If company profile is not provided, ask for it before proceeding.

Process

Step 1: Requirements Extraction

Parse the RFP and extract:

• Mandatory requirements (shall/must statements)
• Evaluation criteria and weights
• Submission format requirements
• Key dates (questions deadline, submission deadline, oral presentations)
• Scope of work summary
• Special instructions or certifications needed

Output a compliance matrix: | Req # | Requirement | Section | Compliant? | Response Notes |

Step 2: Compliance Mapping

For each requirement:

• Map to company capability or past performance
• Flag gaps where company cannot fully comply
• Suggest mitigation strategies for partial compliance
• Identify teaming/subcontracting opportunities for gaps

Step 3: Response Generation

Generate response sections following this structure:

Executive Summary

• Opening hook tied to customer's mission
• 3-4 win themes with proof points
• Clear value proposition
• Team/past performance highlights

Technical Approach

• Solution architecture aligned to requirements
• Innovation or efficiency differentiators
• Risk mitigation approach
• Implementation timeline with milestones

Management Approach

• Project management methodology
• Team structure and key personnel
• Communication and reporting plan
• Quality assurance process

Past Performance

• 3-5 relevant projects with:
  • Client (or anonymized reference)
  • Scope similarity to current RFP
  • Quantified outcomes (cost savings, efficiency gains, timeline delivery)
  • Relevance to evaluation criteria

Pricing Narrative (non-pricing volume)

• Value justification
• Cost efficiency approach
• ROI projection for the customer

Step 4: Compliance Review

Cross-check every requirement against the draft:

• Verify all "shall" statements are addressed
• Check page/word limits
• Ensure evaluation criteria are explicitly addressed
• Flag any ambiguous requirements needing clarification questions

Output

Deliver the following files:

1. compliance-matrix.md — Full requirements compliance mapping
2. executive-summary.md — Standalone executive summary
3. technical-response.md — Technical approach section
4. management-response.md — Management approach section
5. past-performance.md — Past performance narratives
6. review-checklist.md — Final compliance review with pass/fail per requirement

Quality Rules

• Never fabricate past performance. Use provided data or mark as [INSERT: relevant project details]
• Mirror the RFP language. Use the customer's terminology, not generic business speak
• Address evaluation criteria explicitly. If they score on "technical approach" at 40%, that section gets 40% of the effort
• Quantify everything. "Reduced costs by 30%" beats "significant cost reduction"
• Follow the humanizer rules from SOUL.md §7 for all narrative sections
• Flag risks honestly. Evaluators respect transparency over hand-waving

Anti-Patterns

• Generic boilerplate that doesn't reference the specific RFP
• Ignoring page limits or formatting requirements
• Burying key differentiators in dense paragraphs
• Claiming capabilities without evidence
• Using first person ("we are the best") without proof points