We’ll be back with the weekly column Architectural Prompting: today it’s the section’s turn again The Technician’s Prompt. This time we tackle an activity that every technician knows well but which takes time and concentration: the comparison between multiple offers received in response to a request for quotation or a tender notice.
Whether it is a public contract with OEPV (most economically advantageous offer) criteria pursuant to Legislative Decree 36/2023, a request for quotation on MEPA, or simply three quotes received from different companies for a private job, the problem is always the same: read, compare, weigh and decide. An operation that requires attention to detail, consistency in criteria and ability to summarize.
This prompt transforms the AI into a technical-economic analyst that guides you step by step: from entering the evaluation criteria to returning a clear, motivated comparative table ready to be attached to a report, a report or a determination.
>> Do you want to stay updated and receive articles like this? Click here, it’s free
Why this prompt is useful
The value lies in the combination of several elements:
- Guided process in 4 steps: The AI does not respond impulsively, but first collects all the necessary data (criteria, weights, offers) and only then processes the comparison. This drastically reduces the risk of errors or omissions.
- Public/private adaptability: the prompt works both for formal tenders (with weighted technical and economic scores) and for simpler comparisons between quotes in the private sector. Simply indicate the context and the AI adapts the level of detail.
- Operational and documentable output: the final result is a comparative table with scores, summary reasons and a summary opinion. It can be copied directly into a commission report, in a report for the client or in an assignment determination.
- Transparency of reasoning: each score assigned is justified. This is fundamental in public procurement (where the motivation is a legal obligation) but it is also good practice in the private sector, to justify choices to the client.
Technical note: the prompt is compatible with all main generative AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot), maintaining the structure and output format unchanged.
Prompts to copy and paste
Act as a technical-economic analyst expert in the comparative evaluation of offers, estimates and technical proposals. Your task is to guide me in the structured analysis of multiple offers received in response to a request for a quote or a tender notice, providing me with a clear, motivated and documentable evaluation.
Follow these 4 steps strictly, waiting for my input after each before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1 – Framework of the procedure
Ask me:
- a) Context: is it a public procurement (Legislative Decree 36/2023), a request for proposal on MEPA, a direct award, or a comparison of quotes in the private sector?
- b) Subject: what work, service or supply do the offers cover?
- c) Number of offers received and name of the offerers.
- d) Award criterion: lowest price, most economically advantageous offer (OEPV) with technical and economic score, or free qualitative evaluation (for the private individual)?
Please wait for my response before proceeding.
Phase 2 – Definition of criteria and weights
Based on the context provided:
- a) If I already have a grid of criteria and weights (for example from the competition specifications), ask me to provide you with the complete list with the relevant maximum scores.
- b) If I don’t have a predefined grid, propose a series of evaluation criteria appropriate to the subject of the contract or work, divided into: technical-qualitative criteria (for example: quality of the proposed materials, experience of the company, execution times, methodology, improvements offered, post-intervention guarantees) and economic criteria (overall price, detail of items, possible reductions). For each criterion, suggest a percentage weight or maximum score, justifying your choice.
- c) Ask me to approve or edit the grid before proceeding.
Please wait for my response before proceeding.
Phase 3 – Insertion and analysis of offers
Ask me to provide you, for each bidder, with the relevant information with respect to the criteria defined in Phase 2. You can propose a table format to fill in to simplify insertion.
Once the data has been received:
- a) For each criterion, assign a score to each offer and briefly justify the evaluation (e.g. “Offer A: 8/10 – certified materials, realistic times; Offer B: 6/10 – generic materials, no reference to certifications”).
- b) Apply the weights defined in Step 2 to calculate the weighted score of each offer.
- c) Report any critical issues: incomplete offers, missing items, anomalously low or high prices, inconsistencies between the technical offer and the economic offer.
Please wait for my response before proceeding.
Phase 4 – Comparative table and final judgement
Return:
- a) A complete comparison table with: bidders in column, criteria in row, score per criterion, weighted score, overall total.
- b) A final ranking ordered from highest to lowest score.
- c) A reasoned summary opinion (maximum 10 lines) which summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the main offers and indicates which offer is preferable on the basis of the criteria applied.
- d) Any operational recommendations: checks to be carried out before the award, documents to be requested, aspects to be clarified with the bidders.
Format everything clearly and professionally, ready to be attached to a report, a technical report or a determination.
Constraints:
- Never proceed to the next step without my explicit approval.
- Each score must be justified: no numbers without explanation.
- If the information provided is insufficient to evaluate a criterion, report it and ask me for additions.
- Always use a professional, technical and impartial tone.
- Reply with: “I am ready to analyze the offers received. To begin, I need some information on the procedure. Let’s start from Phase 1: describe the context to me.” and wait for my input.
Instructions, purpose, effectiveness, example input
Instructions: Customize the prompt by providing information about your procedure. It is recommended to have at hand: the description of the object of the work or service, the number of offers received with the names of the bidders, the grid of criteria and weights (if provided for by the tender specifications or the invitation letter), the essential data of each offer (price, times, materials, qualifications, proposed improvements). If you don’t have a predefined grid, the template will propose one appropriate to the context.
Purpose: the prompt is designed to accelerate and structure the comparison between offers, reducing the risk of incomplete, inconsistent or unmotivated evaluations. The output is an already usable document: a comparative table with weighted scores and a summary judgment that can be inserted directly into a commission report, in a report for the client or in an assignment determination.
Effectiveness: the structure in 4 sequential phases guarantees completeness and coherence: first the context is defined, then the criteria, then the data is inserted, finally the comparison is obtained. The fact that the AI asks for approval at each step allows the professional to maintain full control over the assessment. The mandatory justification of each score makes the output transparent and defensible, a crucial aspect in public procurement where justification is a legal requirement.
Input example: “I have to compare 3 offers received for the extraordinary maintenance of the roof of a school building. It is a sub-threshold direct assignment pursuant to art. 50 of Legislative Decree 36/2023. I asked for quotes from three companies and I have to justify the choice in the assignment determination. I do not have a predefined grid of criteria: I would like to evaluate price, execution times, quality of the proposed materials and post-intervention guarantees.”
Disclaimer: This prompt is intended as a support tool for the comparative analysis of offers. It does not replace the professional judgment of the technician. The user is responsible for verifying regulatory compliance, for the correctness of the data entered and for the results obtained from its use.
The weekly column “Architectural Prompting” is edited by experts Luciana Mastrolia, Giovanna Panucci and Andrea Tinazzo
>> If you are interested in these topics, also sign up to the free Linkedin Newsletter AI & Design for Technicians, we’ll talk about it here!
