0b64eda25e
52pp, clean text layer, no OCR needed. Rubric matches #22's record and is nested three deep, with sub-items that are weighted under two parents and unweighted guidance under two others. Schedule C (the price sheet) contains only 'Separate attachment to be completed in Excel' — a ready-made labelled known-miss where pricing is 40% of the available score. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
66 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
66 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|