helmdocs-proposal-system/corpus/friendship-pcs/NOTES.md

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.