RFP response automation that cites every answer, checks every promise and tells you which section will miss Friday
Higher win rate, no promise you can't keep, and the bid in on time.
See one case, screen by screen ↓RFP response automation software for proposal teams. Eight agents shred the RFP, RFI or RFQ into every question and instruction, draft each answer from your library and won proposals with a citation for every claim, route the gaps to experts, check every promise against what the company can deliver, predict the buyer's score and forecast the finish. The proposal manager approves each section, and the agents assemble the response in the buyer's template for a person to submit.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
An RFP arrives with a few hundred questions, a pricing workbook, the buyer's own Word template, page and word limits, and a deadline nobody can move. The proposal manager builds the compliance matrix by hand, copies answers from the library and old bids, and then chases sales engineers and subject-matter experts who are answering the same settled questions they answered last month. The work piles into the last three days, and the security lead is often the critical path.
The risk is in what gets copied. An answer lifted from a 2024 bid promises 99.99% availability when the hosting policy now offers 99.95% at most; another says go-live in 90 days for 46 interfaces, or certifies a HITRUST scope that lapses before the contract starts, or accepts unlimited liability the contract playbook forbids. Once submitted, those promises are often written into the contract. And no one can see which section will miss the deadline until it does.
Estimated person days for a large bid like the sample one — 184 questions, five years, well above the 33-hour average: about 30 by hand, against the 15 (120 hours) the planner scheduled for the sample bid.
Eight agents shred, draft, review, check every promise and forecast the finish; the proposal manager approves each section.
Calderbrook Health System, an 11-hospital health system, has sent RFP CHS-2026-114 for EHR integration and interoperability services: 184 questions, five years, $4.82M, due Friday 16 October at 17:00. It is Wednesday, 09:40. Here is how the proposal manager works with the agents, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Each tile is a section and each small cell a question, filling as answers are drafted, reviewed and approved. 162 of 184 are drafted, 14 are with experts, 8 need pricing and 2 of 9 sections are approved; the predicted score is 83.3 of 100. Above the tiles the burndown shows 37.5 hours of person work left and a forecast finish of Fri 18:40 — 1 h 40 min late. Section 6, Security and privacy, is marked at risk.
“Finishes Fri 18:40, 1 h 40 min late. 8 questions need 12.0 h of Ingrid Solberg's time; she has 4.5 h free before Thu 12:00.”
The planner reads the 8 open questions and their effort, both experts' calendars to Friday 17:00 and the skills register. It moves 6.21 penetration testing, 6.22 vulnerability management and 6.27 incident response to Arjun Mehta, security architect, who has 6 hours free. For 6.9 encryption at rest and 6.12 multi-factor authentication it finds approved answers in the Brennick Regional Health bid won in June 2026, for Ingrid to confirm instead of write. Ingrid goes from 12.0 to 4.4 hours.
“Nothing moves until you accept.”
Sara accepts the replan. The burndown now forecasts Fri 14:20, 2 h 40 min to spare, with 34.9 hours of work left, and Section 6 stops showing at risk. The planner tells Ingrid and Arjun and sets their due times for Thursday 12:00 and 17:00. Both the acceptance and the message are on the audit trail.
Ingrid sees only what needs her: “Calderbrook Health RFP needs 5 answers from you”, due Thursday 12:00. For 6.9 and 6.12 the approved Brennick answer is already there, reviewed by her on 21 Aug 2026 — she confirms or writes a new one. For 6.30, where Exhibit H has 3 clauses outside the standard business associate agreement, she writes the answer and the reviewer checks it against the requirement.
Each request says how long it should take: about 10 minutes to 1.5 hours.
“State the time from contract signature to go-live.” The drafting agent wrote “Go-live in 90 days” from an older proposal. The commitment checker read implementation method IM-3 — 120 days for 40 or more interfaces, and Calderbrook has 46 — and Marcus Oyelaran accepted the corrected wording on Tuesday. The answer now cites IM-3 and the won Brennick proposal; the reviewer passed it: 2 of 2 requirements answered, win theme W1 present, 21 of 150 words.
The drafting agent never states a capability without a source; under 70% confidence it routes the question to an expert.
The commitment checker found 63 promises in 162 drafts — availability, dates, certificates, liability, response times — and checked each against what binds Kestrel & Vane on the 1 Feb 2027 start date. 59 hold. Answer 5.3 promises “99.99% monthly availability”, from a 2024 statement past its review date; hosting SLA policy HS-4 v6 offers 99.9% standard and 99.95% premium. It proposes 99.95% with the premium tier, priced in 8.4, for Tomás Reyes, the hosting lead, to accept, send on or override with a reason.
“Why it matters: at 99.99% a missed month would cost up to $7,000 in service credits we did not price.”
The evaluator scores each section with the RFP's §2.4 weights: 83.3 of 100 now, 86.1 when the gaps close, against a target of 85. Security sits at 15.2 of 20 because 8 answers are still with experts — 4.8 points at stake. The reviewer, independent of the drafter, has 287 of 332 requirements answered, win themes in 84 of 95 answers that need one, and 4 answers flagged to their owners, such as 3.14, which does not say how standards work protects the 120-day plan.
The evaluator never claims to know the buyer's decision: the score is a prediction.
The pricing agent filled 8 lines from price book PB-2026.3: $4,820,000 over five years, $436,800 of discount, a 31.4% margin against a 28% floor. Lines 8.4 and 8.7 carry a 12% multi-year discount, above the account executive's 8% authority, so they wait for Olu Adeyemi on the deal desk. It also checked the 5 prices the narrative mentions: answer 7.4 says data migration is in the fixed fee, but the workbook prices it in 8.9.
The pricing agent never sends a price without deal desk approval.
Section 4, Implementation and project management, shows 22 of 22 reviewed, 41 of 41 requirements answered, 19 answers carrying a win theme and a predicted 17.6 of 20. Sara picks SA-01 Complete and reviewed, adds her note, ticks that she has read the reviewer's and the commitment checker's results, and signs as approver. 3 of 9 sections are now approved.
“Reviewed with Marcus Oyelaran. 4.6 now says 120 days, matching the plan in Attachment 6.”
The assembler places Section 4 in Calderbrook's own Word template, Exhibit T, on pages 19–31, then re-reads the file against the shred: answers inside their word limits, a 97-page forecast against the 120-page limit, headings and numbering unchanged, Arial 11 pt. 4 of 10 checks pass so far, and the proof shows what is still open: 7.4 contradicts Exhibit P, form E waits for Catherine Moreau, 3 promise conflicts are open.
“Submit stays locked until all 10 checks pass and Catherine Moreau signs.”
The same RFP, seen by five of the people who carry it — what bid week looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents shred, draft, review, check every promise and forecast the finish; the proposal manager approves each section.
Reads the RFP package and addenda — the PDF, Excel questionnaire, pricing workbook and Word template — and extracts every question, instruction, evaluation weight, page and word limit and deadline.
Drafts each answer from the approved library and won proposals, with a numbered citation for every claim and a confidence score.
Assigns gaps to experts by skill and calendar, forecasts the finish against the deadline, replans when a section will be late, and sends reminders.
Re-reads every answer against its requirement, its word limit and the win themes, independently of the drafter.
Finds every promise in the answers and checks it against the hosting SLA policy, the certificate register, the implementation method, the contract playbook and the price book.
Predicts the buyer's score for each section with the RFP's own weights, and names the answers that lose points.
Builds the pricing lines from the price book, checks that every price the narrative mentions matches the workbook, and checks discount authority.
Fills the buyer's Word template and pricing workbook, then proves the file is complete: every question placed once, limits, fonts, forms and approvals.
Approves each section. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask about any bid, section, answer or promise — or say who to remind. Every answer cites its source, and changes are proposed for a person to approve.
Will Calderbrook make Friday 17:00?
Not as planned: the forecast is Fri 18:40, 1 h 40 min late. Section 6 needs 12.0 h of Ingrid Solberg's time and she has 4.5 h free before Thu 12:00. The planner has a replan: three questions to Arjun Mehta and two approved answers from the Brennick bid for Ingrid to confirm. New forecast Fri 14:20.
Which answers promise more than we can deliver?
3 of 63 promises conflict: 5.3, “99.99% monthly availability”; 6.31, “HITRUST r2 certified for the contract term”; and 9.4, “Unlimited liability for data breaches”. The hosting policy offers 99.95% at most, the HITRUST r2 certificate expires 30 Nov 2026, and the playbook caps breach liability at 3× annual fees. Each has proposed wording waiting for its owner.
Why is Section 6 scored lowest?
15.2 of 20, because 8 answers are still with experts. Security is worth 20 points in §2.4 and asks for evidence, not assurances. 4.8 points ride on 6.9, 6.12, 6.21, 6.22, 6.27, 6.30, 6.31 and 6.33. Closing them and the 5.3 wording lifts the bid from 83.3 to 86.1.
Remind everyone with work due tomorrow
Sent 5 reminders: Ingrid Solberg and Lena Fischer (due Thu 12:00), Tomás Reyes (Thu 10:00), Hana Kobayashi (Thu 14:00) and Olu Adeyemi for the two discounts (Thu 16:00). Each says exactly which questions and how long they should take. Every reminder is on the record.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The thresholds the agents work to are settings. Changes are saved as a new version that the VP Sales Engineering approves; until then the agents keep working to the version that is live.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Drafting confidence needed to draft (below it, an expert answers) | 70% | Any percentage · saved as a new version |
| Reviewer must pass every answer before a section is approved | Always | Fixed — cannot be switched off |
| Predicted-score target | 85 of 100 | Any score · saved as a new version |
| A section is at risk when its forecast finish is later than | Deadline − 2 h | Any margin before the deadline |
| Reminders before an expert's due time | 24 h, 4 h, 1 h | Any set of reminder times |
| Discount authority | Account executive 8% · deal desk 15% | Set per role; above 15%, the VP Sales |
| Margin floor | 28% | Any percentage · saved as a new version |
| Promises are checked against | HS-4 v6 · certificate register · IM-3 · CP-2026 · PB-2026.3 | The policies, registers and price book that bind you |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample bid · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (2026 RFP response benchmark survey of 1,533 respondents, published by an RFP software vendor — 33 hours per RFP, 39 for enterprise teams, 45% average win rate across 2019–2026; vendor estimates that 20–40% of library answers go out of date within six months). People, companies, bids and policies named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
RFP response automation software for proposal teams. Eight agents shred the RFP, RFI or RFQ into every question and instruction, draft each answer from your library and won proposals with a citation for every claim, route the gaps to experts, check every promise against what the company can deliver, predict the buyer's score and forecast the finish. The proposal manager approves each section, and the agents assemble the response in the buyer's template for a person to submit.
The commitment checker finds every promise in the drafts — availability, go-live dates, certificates, liability, response times — and checks it against your hosting SLA policy, certificate register, implementation method, contract playbook and price book on the contract start date. A conflict shows both sources and proposed wording, and goes to the answer's owner to accept, send on or override with a reason.
The planner turns the open questions, their effort and each expert's calendar into a burndown of hours left and a forecast finish for every section. When a forecast passes the deadline it proposes a replan — moving questions to a second qualified expert or offering an approved answer from a won bid to confirm — and the proposal manager accepts or edits it.
Yes. The drafting agent drafts from your approved library and past winning proposals and cites the entry it used. Below 70% confidence, or where current evidence is needed, it sends the question to an expert instead of guessing.
Yes. The assembler places each approved section in the buyer's Word template and fills the pricing workbook, then runs a submission proof: every question placed once, word and page limits, headings and fonts unchanged, no prices in the technical volume, forms signed, promises checked and prices approved.
No. Agents never submit, never send a price and never accept a legal exception. Discounts above the account executive's authority wait for deal desk, and submit stays locked until the proof passes and the VP Sales Engineering signs.
Yes. The proposal manager approves each section with a reason code, deal desk approves prices, counsel approves legal exceptions and the VP Sales Engineering approves the submission. Every agent step and every decision is on the audit trail with its sources.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your answer library, past proposals, policies and price book — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on one of your own past RFPs first.
Questionnaires back in days, not weeks, and every answer matches what customers were told.
1-min demoDue Diligence Questionnaire (DDQ) ResponseEvery DDQ answered from approved sources, and no investor told two different stories.
1-min demoRFP Compliance MatrixEvery shall answered and cited before red team, so no bid is lost on compliance.
1-min demoWe'll run RFP Response Automation on one of your own past RFPs, against your answer library and policies.