# Friendship PCS — extraction notes

Text extracted with pdfjs 4.10.38 (line-grouped by y-position). 52pp, 105,154
chars, **no page needed OCR** — the text layer is clean throughout.

Raw output in `extracted/`. This is a reading aid for authoring, *not* the
production pipeline's output — that runs through Document AI and is what gets
measured later.

## The rubric is real and nested three deep

Verbatim from Section K.2, "Technical Rating Scale":

```
Pricing                                          40
  Total Bid Cost (Base Year)                     (no separate points)
Method of Approach and Implementation            30
  Food and Packaging                             15
  Utilization of USDA Foods                      10
  Geographic preference                           5
Bidder's Experience, Expertise & Reliability     20
  Knowledge of USDA / District requirements       5
  Dependability                                   5
  Inspection of warehouse and facilities          5
  Customer Service                                5
Proven Organizational Capacity                    5
  (three sub-bullets, NO points)
Community Connection, Values Alignment            5
  (three sub-bullets, NO points)
```

Matches what #22 recorded. Two structural facts it did not capture:

**Sub-items are inconsistent.** Under Method of Approach and Experience they are
*weighted sub-criteria* summing to the parent. Under Organizational Capacity and
Community Connection they are *unweighted guidance*. The same visual nesting
means two different things in one document.

**Geographic preference embeds a mandatory submission inside a scored
criterion:** "Bidder must submit certification of percentage of locally grown or
raised foods." A scored criterion carrying a pass/fail artifact.

## Extraction hazards confirmed here

**The rubric never uses the word "criteria" as a heading.** It lives under
"SECTION K: Evaluation Factors" → "K.2 Technical Rating Scale", with weights as
bullet suffixes (`– 40 points`). A keyword search for "evaluation criteria" or
"scoring" returns nothing. First-pass evidence for why #16's completeness sweep
cannot rely on headings.

**Schedule C is the price sheet and contains no prices.** Verbatim, the entire
section body is:

> SCHEDULE C: PRICING SHEET
> *Separate attachment to be completed in Excel.

This is #22's second extraction hazard in its purest form: a PDF-only extractor
finds **zero pricing** on a solicitation where pricing is 40% of the score. It is
also a ready-made **labelled known-miss** for the sweep — the obligation is
present, its content is not, and no amount of better PDF parsing recovers it.

## Obligation density

149 × "shall", 64 × "must" across 52 pages. An earlier ad-hoc extraction reported
zero of each; that was the extractor failing, not the document.