{"id":"sales-rfp-bid-no-bid-weighted-score","audience":"sales","category":"sales-work","technique":"constraints","track":"sales","level":"advanced","title":"Recommend bid or no bid from a weighted score, showing the math","free":false,"task":"Recommend whether to bid on an RFP. Line 1 is exactly \"Recommendation: Bid\" or \"Recommendation: No bid\". Then exactly 3 numbered lines: 1. the weighted score math (each score times its weight, then the sum), 2. the biggest drag on the score with its reason from the notes, 3. one condition from the notes that would change the answer. Apply the threshold rule. Plain text, under 130 words.","materialLabel":"Scoring sheet and RFP facts (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"BID / NO-BID POLICY: score each factor 1 to 5 (5 best); weighted score = sum of score x weight. Bid if the weighted score is 3.5 or higher; otherwise No bid. Leadership may override only with VP approval.\n\nWeights: Fit 40%; Win probability 30%; Effort 20% (5 = low effort); Margin 10%.\n\nRFP: Harbor County Schools, transportation-scheduling software, $310,000 over 3 years. Response due Dec 4. Response needs 60 hours of effort.\n\nScores (sales team): Fit 4 (meets 9 of 11 requirements); Win probability 2 (the incumbent vendor has served them for 7 years and the RFP requires a feature we lack for the live-tracking requirement); Effort 3; Margin 3.\n\nNote: if the county waived the live-tracking requirement (a clarification question is due Nov 12), win probability would be re-scored at 3.\nSales director's remark: 'We should bid anyway for the exposure.' (policy: needs VP approval)","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":3},{"type":"maxWords","max":130}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Recommending Bid for exposure","why":"The AI follows the director's remark.","fix":"Add: \"Apply the threshold; exposure is not a reason.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Skipping the math","why":"The AI states the score only.","fix":"Add: \"Show each score times its weight and the sum.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Vague conditions","why":"The AI says 'if things change'.","fix":"Add: \"Name one specific condition from the notes.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Wrong structure","why":"The AI writes a long memo.","fix":"Add: \"Line 1 recommendation, then exactly 3 numbered lines.\"","checks":["r0","numberedItems","maxWords"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Fixes line 1","patterns":["recommendation:","first line","exactly"]},{"label":"Fixes 3 numbered lines","patterns":["3 numbered","exactly 3","three"]},{"label":"Asks for the weighted math","patterns":["weighted","score times","weight"]},{"label":"Applies the threshold","patterns":["3\\.5","threshold"]},{"label":"Names a change condition","patterns":["condition","would change"]}],"hint":"Fix line 1 and the three reasons, ask for the weighted math and apply the threshold.","rubricLabels":["Line 1 is exactly \"Recommendation: No bid\"","Reason 1 shows the math 4 x 0.4 + 2 x 0.3 + 3 x 0.2 + 3 x 0.1 = 1.6 + 0.6 + 0.6 + 0.3 = 3.1, which is below the 3.5 threshold","Reason 2 names win probability (the 7-year incumbent and the missing live-tracking feature) as the biggest drag, and reason 3 names the waiver of the live-tracking requirement (clarification due Nov 12) as a change, while the exposure remark is not used as a reason"]}