rfp-response-content-finder

name

rfp-response-content-finder

description

Searches the firm's SharePoint document libraries — Capability Library, Content Asset Library, Past Proposals Library, and Standard Positions — to find existing content that matches each requirement or question in the RFP Tracker list. Classifies each row as administrative or substantive before searching, with smart routing per library. Writes concise summaries into Available Content and document URLs into three dedicated SharePoint Hyperlink columns (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3) for clickable navigation.

Content Finder Skill

Firm Profile (REQUIRED — fill in before use)

These values define who your firm is and how it writes. See SETUP.md.

• FIRM NAME: [FIRM NAME]
• WHAT THE FIRM DOES: [one sentence]
• ROLE BOUNDARY: [what the firm will NOT claim to do — leave blank if none]
• VENDOR STANCE: [vendor-neutral OR resells/implements specific products]
• SPECIALIZATION: [domains the firm credibly claims]
• VOICE: [3–5 adjectives]

---

Purpose

For each row in the RFP Tracker, classify it, route it to the most relevant content libraries, and populate four columns: Available Content (a short plain-language summary for human review in list view) and up to three Source hyperlink columns pointing to the matched documents.

Source links are the drafting input for Phase 3. The Content Generation agent follows them to retrieve and read the full documents before drafting. The Available Content summary is for human review only — it is not sufficient for drafting.

---

Prerequisites

• The RFP Tracker List must be populated (output of RFP Extraction).
• The list must have these columns configured:
  • Available Content — Multiple lines of text
  • Source 1, Source 2, Source 3 — Hyperlink type (each stores one URL with display text)
• Read access to the firm's content libraries:
  • Capability Library — methodology, capability statements, case-study abstracts
  • Content Asset Library — slides, FAQs, proposal fragments, boilerplate
  • Past Proposals Library — prior submitted proposals
  • Standard Positions — reusable positions on IP & data rights, pricing, exceptions & assumptions
• Write access to the RFP Tracker list to update all four columns.

Library names above are the SETUP.md defaults. If you renamed them, use your names consistently here and in the routing map.

---

Step 1 — Load the RFP Tracker List

1. Retrieve all items from the RFP Tracker list.
2. For each item, read Item, Category, Mandatory, and the four output columns — skip rows where all four are already populated unless the user requests a full re-run.
3. Build a working queue. Place Mandatory = Yes rows at the front.

---

Step 2 — Pre-screen: Classify Each Row

Classify every queued row as Administrative or Substantive before searching — this determines whether a library search is needed and which libraries.

Administrative Requirements

Pass/fail legal, corporate, or regulatory qualifiers. The correct response is a legal attestation, standard corporate certification, or a direct lift of identity data — not a content match from the methodology libraries.

Indicators: legal authority to bind the firm; corporate registration, entity status, jurisdiction, tax IDs; financial stability, bonding, insurance; conflict-of-interest/independence; signatory authority/notarization; diversity/ socioeconomic certifications.

Action: no methodology-library match needed. Write a standard attestation note pointing to where the corporate/legal data lives and, where appropriate, the team that confirms response language.

Available Content: [ADMINISTRATIVE QUALIFIER] Pass/fail legal or corporate
eligibility requirement. Respond with standard corporate certification,
attestation, or legal declaration. Identity/boilerplate data — if needed —
comes from the firm's corporate boilerplate document.

Source 1: [Display: Corporate Boilerplate — Content Asset Library]
          [URL: link to the firm's corporate boilerplate document]
Source 2: [Display: Legal/Contracts team — confirm response language]
          [URL: leave blank or link to internal template if available]
Source 3: [leave blank]

Substantive Requirements

All other rows — approach, methodology, team, references, pricing, governance, change management, IP/data rights, exceptions, technical capability. Apply Steps 3 and 4.

---

Step 3 — Route, Then Index the Document Libraries

For substantive rows only. Route first, then index — searching every library for every row wastes budget and dilutes relevance.

Library Routing Map

Requirement signal (keywords / topic)	Primary library	Secondary libraries
References, prior similar engagements, case studies	Past Proposals Library	Capability Library
Methodology, approach, framework, "how do you…"	Capability Library	Content Asset Library, Past Proposals
Team, bios, roles, staffing	Capability Library	Past Proposals
IP, data rights, deliverables ownership	Standard Positions (IP & Data Rights)	Capability Library
Pricing model, rate card, fee structure	Standard Positions (Pricing)	Past Proposals
Exceptions, assumptions, deviations from terms	Standard Positions (Exceptions)	Capability Library
Change management, adoption, training	Capability Library	Past Proposals
Subcontracting, teaming, partnership strategy	Past Proposals	Capability Library
Anything not above	Capability Library	Content Asset Library, Past Proposals

Adapt the topic rows to your firm's actual SPECIALIZATION. The routing structure matters more than the specific keywords.

Indexing

For each routed library:

1. Retrieve documents.
2. Extract: title, filename, library, full text (or, for long documents, key sections — executive summary, approach, methodology, differentiators, team profiles).
3. Log any documents that cannot be read (scanned, protected, corrupt) and continue — do not halt.

If a routed library has 50+ documents and the requirement is broad, ask the user to confirm the RFP's primary solution domain so results can be pre-filtered by metadata tags before scoring.

---

Step 4 — Score and Rank Content

For each substantive row, score documents from the routed libraries.

Relevance Scoring Criteria

Signal	Weight	Description
Semantic alignment	High	Addresses the same topic/question, even if phrased differently
Keyword overlap	High	Core nouns/phrases from the requirement appear in the document
Category match	Medium	Capability statements score higher for approach questions; Past Proposals for examples/references; Standard Positions for IP/pricing/exceptions
Library source	Medium	Preference order: Capability Library → Past Proposals → Standard Positions → Content Asset Library. Higher-authority libraries win ties.
Recency	Low	More recently modified documents score slightly higher

Ranking Rules

• Return the top 3 matches per row. Fewer is acceptable — never pad with weakly relevant documents.
• Only include a match with genuine, meaningful relevance to the specific requirement.
• If no document clears a meaningful relevance threshold, flag the row as No Match Found rather than inserting a low-quality result.

---

Step 5 — Populate the Columns

For each row — administrative or substantive — write all four columns.

Available Content Column

Max 2 sentences and 50 words per match (this column is read in list view). Do not include document names or URLs here; those go in the Source columns.

Substantive matches:

[High] Five-step delivery methodology with risk tiering directly applicable to
this requirement — approach section adaptable with minimal editing.
[Medium] Prior engagement with comparable scope and outcomes. [Medium] Standard
IP & data rights position — deliverables licensing language ready to lift.

No match:

[NO MATCH] No existing content found. Net-new content required —
see Source 1 for recommended next action.

Administrative rows:

[ADMIN] Pass/fail corporate eligibility requirement. Boilerplate data available
in the corporate boilerplate document; legal language confirmed by Contracts.

Source 1, Source 2, Source 3 Columns (Hyperlink type)

One document URL per column, in relevance order. Set display text to include title, library, and relevance level so reviewers see meaningful labels.

Display text format: Document Title — Library [Relevance]

Example (substantive, methodology question):

Source 1: Display: "Delivery Methodology Framework — Capability Library [High]"
          URL: https://contoso.sharepoint.com/sites/Proposals/CapabilityLibrary/Delivery_Methodology_Framework.docx
Source 2: Display: "Comparable Engagement Summary — Past Proposals Library [Medium]"
          URL: https://contoso.sharepoint.com/sites/Proposals/PastProposalsLibrary/Comparable_Engagement_Summary.docx
Source 3: Display: "IP & Data Rights Position — Standard Positions [Medium]"
          URL: https://contoso.sharepoint.com/sites/Proposals/StandardPositions/IP_and_Data_Rights_Position.docx

Example (administrative, identity data):

Source 1: Display: "Corporate Boilerplate — Content Asset Library [Canonical]"
          URL: https://contoso.sharepoint.com/sites/Proposals/ContentAssetLibrary/Corporate_Boilerplate.docx

If fewer than 3 matches exist: leave unused Source columns blank.

If no match: write a recommended action in Source 1 with no URL:

Source 1: Display: "NO MATCH — Escalate to SME: [describe topic needed]"
          URL: [leave blank]

---

Step 6 — Report Back to the User

Provide a summary with:

• Total rows processed, split by Administrative vs Substantive.
• Substantive rows with matches vs. No Match Found.
• No Match rows (row number + item text) — require SME/salesperson input before Phase 3.
• Library hit distribution (rows per library) — surfaces gaps in the content estate.
• Documents that could not be indexed (filenames + reason).
• Confirmation that Available Content and Source 1/2/3 are updated.

Example Summary Output

Content mapping complete — RFP Tracker updated.

Rows processed: 31
  • Administrative qualifiers:     6
  • Substantive rows matched:     19
  • Substantive rows — No Match:   6

Library hit distribution (substantive):
  • Capability Library:           9
  • Past Proposals Library:       6
  • Standard Positions:           3
  • Content Asset Library:        1

No Match rows requiring net-new content or SME input:
  Row 9  — "Provide 2 examples of similar engagements in a healthcare context"
  Row 14 — "Explain your subcontracting and teaming strategy"
  Row 19 — "Detail your data residency and sovereignty controls"
  Row 22 — "Describe your exit and transition methodology"
  Row 26 — "Provide your proposed rate card and pricing model"
  Row 30 — "Describe your approach to continuous improvement"

2 documents could not be indexed (access restricted):
  - FAQs_Legacy_v1.pdf
  - CaseStudy_Redacted.pptx

Next steps: Review Available Content summaries in list view. Click Source links
to verify assets before approving mappings at the Phase 1 gate. Plan SME input
for the 6 unmatched substantive rows before Phase 3 drafting begins.

---

Notes & Edge Cases

• Administrative vs substantive edge cases: If a row is ambiguous (e.g., "Describe your firm's legal structure and authority to perform this work"), classify it as substantive — it needs both a legal attestation AND a descriptive response. Flag both components in Available Content.
• Duplicate content across libraries: List the document once in the highest-authority library (per Step 4 preference order) and note both locations in the display text.
• Long documents: For past proposals over 20 pages, reference the specific section in the Source display text (e.g., "Past Proposals Library — Modernization Engagement (pp. 4–7) [High]") so the Content Generation agent knows where to read.
• Restricted documents: If a document is confidential/under NDA, note the restriction in the Source display text rather than omitting the match — the human reviewer decides whether to approve it for reuse.
• Re-running: On re-run, only process rows where Available Content is blank or contains a NO MATCH flag. Do not overwrite approved mappings unless the user explicitly requests a full reset.
• Mandatory rows: Process Mandatory = Yes rows first. If any mandatory substantive row returns No Match, flag it prominently — these are the highest proposal-risk items.