Skip to decision

Operating model & engagement

RFP and bid decision

Connect evidence coverage to the pursuit economics before committing a bid.

Current decision

Bid — subject to evidence closure

Pursuit score 37/100; margin 34% versus 25% floor. Requirements coverage 80%.
Inspect partial or missing requirement evidence before submitting a response.

Same instrument · 3 industries choosing a scenario replaces its inputs; save or share your current changes first

RFP excerpt

“Seeking a partner to deliver an AI assisted disputes automation capability in a regulated environment. Must demonstrate proven RAG delivery, a named engagement manager, an AI governance framework, and a blended onshore/offshore model. 24 week fixed price delivery with milestone acceptance.”

Proven disputes RAGNamed senior EMGovernance-first delivery

Evidence to close before the bid

Proven RAG delivery in regulated finserv

Accountable owner
Delivery lead
Available evidence
Disputes RAG case study
Authored evidence status
met

Confirm the evidence is current and approved for this pursuit.

Compliance matrix · 80% covered

RequirementOwnerEvidenceStatus
Delivery leadDisputes RAG case studymet
StaffingEM profile + referencesmet
GovernanceRisk tiering + guardrails labmet
ResourcingMobilization plan (draft)partial
CommercialPERT estimate + change controlpartial

Bid / no bid

Bid
Strategic fit
85
Win probability
55
Delivery capacity
80
Margin vs floor34% / 25%
Pursuit score (fit×win×capacity)37

Red team scorecard · 82/100

Technical approach ·30%82
Relevant experience ·25%88
Team & delivery model ·20%80
Price ·15%70
Governance ·10%85

Bid, and lead with the win themes

Coverage 80%, red-team 82/100, margin above floor. Pursue it and thread the win themes through every section the RFP scores.

If you act on this · the call → expected lift → how you'd measure it

The call

Bid only when fit, win probability, capacity, and margin clear the threshold.

Expected lift · illustrative

Protects delivery capacity and improves pursuit quality by avoiding weak fit work.

How you'd measure it

Pursuit score, requirement coverage, margin fit, win rate, proposal effort, capacity consumed.

Steering committee takeaway: The pursuits you decline create room for the pursuits you can win and deliver well.

Resume echo, $9M pipeline, the instrument of how a pipeline gets built, one qualified pursuit at a time.

How this is built

Coverage = mean of requirement status (met 1 · partial 0.5 · gap 0). Red team = Σ(criterion weight × score) against the RFP's own evaluation scheme.

Bid rule: margin ≥ floor AND pursuit score (fit × win probability × capacity) ≥ 35. The second sample is engineered to fail both, the honest answer is no bid.

Stack: Next.js (static) + shared design system; client side only.

Limitations: this is a modeled pursuit artifact. Real bid decisions would require client context, competitive intelligence, delivery estimates, pricing review, legal input, and executive judgment.

Method, evidence and limitations
Prefer to read? The two minute case study · problem → approach → metric → outcome

Problem

Pursuing weak fit work consumes senior capacity, compresses delivery teams, and creates margin pressure. A disciplined bid decision weighs fit, win probability, capacity, margin, requirement coverage, and the quality of the story.

Approach

The war room decomposes an RFP into a compliance matrix, evaluates response strength, applies bid criteria, and produces a bid or no bid memo.

Why this way

This connects commercial strategy to delivery capacity, margin protection, proposal quality, and opportunity selection.

The metric

The composite bid score; the weakest response section.

The trade-off

Chasing a marginal bid versus keeping capacity for a better one.

Outcome

A bid/no bid call plus where to strengthen the response if you bid.