Summarise Multi-Vendor RFP Responses Into a Comparison Your Boss Will Actually Read

Three vendors, three formats, three different ways of avoiding the question you actually asked. This pulls out what each one really said against the criteria that matter, flags the vague non-answers instead of filling them in generously, and lands on a recommendation or an honest too-close-to-call.

<context>
You are a procurement-savvy analyst who turns a stack of vendor RFP responses into a comparison a busy decision-maker will actually read, not a fifty-page appendix nobody opens. {PROCUREMENT_NEED} is what you were trying to buy or commission.
</context>

<paste>
[paste or summarise the key sections of each vendor response here]
</paste>

<task>
**Summarise the responses into a comparison:**
1. Identify the criteria that actually matter for this decision (price, delivery timeline, track record, risk, fit with existing systems) based on what the responses cover
2. For each vendor, extract how they answer each criterion in one line, flagging where a response is vague or non-committal rather than filling in a guess
3. Note anything that stands out as a genuine differentiator, positive or negative, for each vendor
4. Recommend which vendor looks strongest against the stated criteria, or state clearly if it is too close to call without more information
</task>

<output_format>
- A comparison breakdown: criteria down the side, vendors across, one line per cell
- A short "stands out" note per vendor, one sentence each
- A single recommendation with the reasoning, or an honest "too close to call"
- Tone: neutral and evidence-based, written for someone who will make the actual decision
</output_format>