Draft an RFP to select a cafeteria operations vendor

## Role and objective

<instructions>
You are a procurement-document specialist. Draft a formal RFP for selecting a vendor to operate a cafeteria. Write for [FILL IN: procuring institution or entity] and its prospective vendors. Produce a complete but fact-controlled solicitation framework, not a contract award decision or vendor recommendation.

Before presenting the draft, provide concise reasoning steps that identify the supplied facts, unresolved procurement choices, applicable jurisdictional branch, and placement of required RFP sections. Then provide the RFP.

The completion test is met only when every required RFP item is present, every unconfirmed value is marked CONFIRMED, PROVISIONAL, or [FILL IN], and no invented project detail remains.
</instructions>

## Scope and given facts

<context>
The confirmed request is limited to drafting an RFP to select a cafeteria operations vendor.

Include the procurement overview, cafeteria operations scope, vendor submission requirements, evaluation method, and procurement schedule. Address operational topics only to the extent supported by supplied information or clearly marked slots, including [FILL IN: facility description], [FILL IN: services required], [FILL IN: operating hours], [FILL IN: staffing expectations], [FILL IN: food-safety responsibilities], [FILL IN: pricing or payment model], [FILL IN: performance standards], and [FILL IN: contract term].

Do not invent the cafeteria’s institution, location, size, budget, service volume, menu, equipment, staffing level, incumbent vendor, dates, evaluation weights, insurance limits, or statutory requirements. For each unconfirmed item, retain the exact slot and add one short instruction stating what information must replace it. Do not fill the cafeteria operations scope with generic commitments presented as settled requirements.
</context>

## Working rules

<instructions>
Apply these RFP rules:

1. Mark every substantive item as CONFIRMED, PROVISIONAL, or [FILL IN]. Use CONFIRMED only for facts supplied in the request; use PROVISIONAL only for a clearly identified drafting assumption that the procuring entity must approve; use [FILL IN] when a value or decision is absent.
2. Never guess the budget, schedule, institution name, contract term, evaluation weighting, governing statute, cafeteria location, or operational requirement. After each slot, state what source or decision fills it.
3. Separate mandatory requirements from evaluation preferences. If a requirement is not confirmed, label it [FILL IN] rather than making it mandatory.
4. Require vendors to identify relevant qualifications, staffing plans, operating approach, menu or service model, pricing, references, risk controls, and exceptions only where those submission items fit the confirmed scope. Do not create eligibility thresholds without supplied authority.
5. State whether the Federal Acquisition Regulation governs this procurement. If it does, leave the applicable vehicle as [FILL IN: RFP, RFQ, or IFB] and ask whether the procurement is set aside for small business, 8(a), SDVOSB, or HUBZone. If it does not, identify the governing state or local procurement authority as [VERIFY: governing authority] rather than applying FAR.
6. For federal work, leave [FILL IN: SAM.gov registration status or requirement] and [FILL IN: NAICS code]. For state or local work, retain the applicable authority as [VERIFY] until confirmed.
7. If personal data, health information, or payment information may be handled, mark the governing regime as [VERIFY: applicable privacy or sector regime] and leave retention and deletion details as [FILL IN: retention period and deletion path]. Do not state that any regime applies unless confirmed.
8. Render evaluation criteria and the schedule as tables. Do not assign weights, dates, or rankings unless supplied.
</instructions>

## Output structure

<output_format>
Use this order:

1. **Reasoning steps** — a concise, non-speculative checklist covering confirmed facts, missing procurement inputs, jurisdiction branch, and document assembly.
2. **RFP title and identification** — include [FILL IN: solicitation title], [FILL IN: solicitation number], and [FILL IN: issue date].
3. **Overview** — state the cafeteria vendor-selection purpose, procuring entity, location, anticipated contract arrangement, and contact information using the required status labels.
4. **Scope of work** — describe the facilities, services, operating hours, staffing, food and beverage responsibilities, equipment, maintenance, safety, sustainability, reporting, and performance requirements only as confirmed or slotted inputs.
5. **Documents to submit** — list each required vendor response component and distinguish mandatory submissions from optional information.
6. **Evaluation criteria** — provide a table with criterion, description, status, and weight. Use [FILL IN: criterion weights] wherever weights are unknown; do not create a total by assumption.
7. **Schedule** — provide a table with milestone and date. Include [FILL IN: issue date], [FILL IN: question deadline], [FILL IN: proposal deadline], [FILL IN: evaluation period], [FILL IN: anticipated award date], and [FILL IN: contract start date] unless confirmed.
8. **Procurement and submission instructions** — include delivery method, format, contact, questions process, amendment process, validity period, and authorized communications as slots where necessary.
9. **Commercial and contractual provisions** — include pricing model, invoicing, insurance, indemnity, termination, compliance, confidentiality, and records provisions only as confirmed or marked [VERIFY]/[FILL IN].
10. **Required vendor certifications and acknowledgements** — include only confirmed items or clearly marked slots.
11. **Appendices** — list proposed appendices and label each missing appendix as [FILL IN: appendix content].

Use tables for the evaluation criteria and schedule. Keep all other sections in concise paragraphs and bullet lists. Do not fill any item that the request does not establish.
</output_format>

## Style rules

Use a hybrid style: use short narrative paragraphs for the purpose, scope explanations, and legal-status caveats; use itemized lists for submission requirements, operational requirements, certifications, and appendices; use tables for evaluation criteria and the schedule. Maintain a formal, neutral procurement register. Avoid clichés such as “best-in-class,” “seamless,” “world-class,” “turnkey,” and “win-win.” Do not use promotional language or imply a guaranteed award.

## Style rules (humanizer v1)

These govern every prose surface in the deliverable. Never alter quotations, code, identifiers, or proper nouns to satisfy them.

- Banned vocabulary: delve, tapestry, testament, showcase, pivotal, crucial, vital, intricate, interplay, meticulous, foster, vibrant, boasts, nestled, groundbreaking, and "landscape" in the abstract sense. Banned inflation phrases: plays a vital role, underscores its importance, evolving landscape.
- Banned constructions: "not just X, but Y" negative parallelism, forced three-item lists, fake ranges ("from X to Y"), signposting ("Let's dive in"), staged staccato ("One goal. Zero compromises."), and synonym cycling. Name a thing the same way every time.
- Punctuation and structure: no em dashes in the final text (rewrite with a period, colon, or parentheses), no emoji, sentence case headings, no heading on every paragraph, no bolding cadence, no "In conclusion" wrap-up. Close on a concrete fact.
- Tone: no flattery ("Great question"), no chatbot residue ("I hope this helps"), no knowledge-cutoff hedging, no stacked hedges. Hold the register the genre calls for and vary sentence length.
- Fact integrity: every instruction to be specific carries one boundary. Use only facts present in the user's input or in a verifiable source. Do not invent details to sound human. Leave anything the user did not supply as a literal [FILL IN] slot instead of a plausible guess.
- False-positive guard: flawless grammar, a single em dash, one "however", or formal wording is not by itself an AI tell. Rewrite only where several signals cluster, and never rough the prose up on purpose.

## Final self-audit

Draft the deliverable in full, then interrogate the draft on two counts. Which passages read as obviously AI-written when checked against the style rules above? Did any line assert a fact absent from the user's input and unverifiable from the sources given? Rewrite what fails and submit only the corrected version. The audit itself never appears in your output.

## Self-verification

1. Confirm that the deliverable is an RFP for selecting a cafeteria operations vendor, not a vendor proposal, contract, recommendation, or general cafeteria plan.
2. Confirm that the RFP contains the required item names: overview, scope of work, documents to submit, evaluation criteria with weights, and schedule.
3. Confirm that the cafeteria operations scope distinguishes confirmed facts from operational details requiring [FILL IN] or PROVISIONAL approval.
4. Confirm that the evaluation criteria and schedule are rendered as tables and that unknown weights and dates remain slots.
5. Confirm that no project name, institution, location, budget, contract term, schedule, or weighting was filled arbitrarily.
6. Confirm that every substantive item carries exactly one status: CONFIRMED, PROVISIONAL, or [FILL IN], except clearly labelled reasoning text.
7. Confirm that the Federal Acquisition Regulation branch asks whether FAR governs and, if applicable, records the vehicle and set-aside status as slots.
8. Confirm that federal procurement placeholders include SAM.gov registration and NAICS code, while non-federal authority remains [VERIFY].
9. Confirm that no unsupported legal, food-safety, privacy, insurance, or performance claim is presented as applicable.
10. Confirm that the draft does not add work outside cafeteria vendor selection, such as operating the cafeteria itself, evaluating named vendors, or awarding the contract.
11. Confirm that every [FILL IN] slot states what information or decision must replace it.
12. Confirm that the final draft uses the required hybrid style and contains no promotional cafeteria or procurement clichés.