Questionnaire
Team,
Thank you for the highly productive kickoff call. As we discussed, our goal is to co-create an AI-assisted workflow that provides maximum value. We committed to following up with a few key questions to ensure that we have a smooth prototyping process.
The purpose of this short questionnaire is to capture the critical perspectives of the wider team, specifically from Sales and Engineering leadership. Your answers will directly shape the first version of the workflow we build together in our upcoming workshop.
To assist with this, here is a potential email to send to the broader team. Please feel free to modify as you prefer:
Hello Team,
Following our kickoff call, we’re excited to take the next step in co-creating a process that truly empowers the team. We grounded ourselves in the belief that the goal here is not just to make the proposal process faster, but to make it fundamentally better—to help you win more deals, surprise customers with responsiveness, and consistently demonstrate the deep expertise that sets you apart.
Your expert perspective is the single most valuable resource we have to achieve this. The few questions that follow are designed to translate your unique, “on-the-ground” knowledge into the DNA of the new workflow. Your insights on customer value, hidden technical risks, and points of friction will serve as the direct blueprint for the initial AI-assisted workflow we will build and explore together in our upcoming design session.
Thank you for lending us your expertise. We look forward to incorporating your feedback and building a powerful tool with you.
Questions for the Team (please feel free to add or modify)
1. For Matt (Head of Sales): The Customer Value & Competitive Edge
Question: If we could leverage AI to change one thing about our proposal process to “surprise” our most important customers and win more competitive deals, what would that one thing be? (e.g., responding in 24 hours, providing a deeper level of technical compliance detail upfront, proactively suggesting better alternatives, etc.)
Context & Rationale: During our call, Simon identified you as the key person to ask about customer value. Daniel then framed this by asking how we could “win more deals” or “differentiate in the market.” Stephen added the powerful idea of creating a response that would “initially surprise the customer.” This question is designed to capture that strategic sales perspective.
2. For James (Engineering Manager): The Hidden Technical Risk
Question: Beyond the known, high-stakes compliance points (like Atex), what is a subtle but critical technical detail that is often buried in specifications, which, if missed at the proposal stage, creates the most significant problems for the engineering and delivery teams post-award?
Context & Rationale: Stephen identified you as the Engineering Manager. Our conversation highlighted critical, known risks like Atex compliance and material grades. However, the most costly issues often come from “one particular spec within said document, which is kind of like five documents deep,” as Stephen described the “lesson learned” from the bolt coating issue. This question seeks to uncover other such “hidden” risks from the core engineering perspective.
3. For the Entire Team (Simon, Stephen, Matt, James): The Point of Maximum Friction
Question: Thinking about the entire process from the moment an inquiry arrives to the moment a final proposal is sent, where does the process feel the most brittle, prone to error, or dependent on a single person’s knowledge?
Context & Rationale: Daniel proposed a core question for the group: “What really slows us down?” Our analysis of the workflow identified several friction points, including the initial document triage, the manual data extraction, and the handoff between teams. This question aims to get a multi-perspective view on which of these (or others) is the most painful.
If we have all responses back before the end of the day, July 30 (tomorrow), then we can stay on track with the project plan. If the team needs more time, no problem, but we may need to shift the timeline accordingly.
Response
Stephen HudsonSHudson@justrite.com
Daniel Englebretson;Bhumika Sachdev bsachdev@justrite.com
Deepak Bhat dbhat@justrite.com;Simon Walmsley SWalmsley@hughes-safety.com
Hi Daniel
Looks great to me.
Excited with what was presented in the KO call and looking forward to getting going with this.
@Bhumika Sachdev – please invite Matt and James to the dev sessions and Paul Darlington/Toni Lock as optionals.
Thanks
Steve Hudson
VP Operations Hughes Global
Mob:+44 7789715632
Response
Simon WalmsleySWalmsley@hughes-safety.com
Bhumika Sachdev bsachdev@justrite.com;Daniel Englebretson
Deepak Bhat dbhat@justrite.com;Stephen Hudson SHudson@justrite.com;James Hamilton JHamilton@hughes-safety.com;Matt Parr mparr@hughes-safety.com
Hi Bhumika, Daniel,
Good morning to you both.
My feedback for question # 3 (the maximum point of friction / “what really slows us down?”) is as follows:
· Initial document triage is a big factor. Upon receipt of a quote request (RFQ) from an EPC (Engineering Procurement Construction) customer it can sometimes be overwhelming knowing where to start. Collating data from recent examples of more complex RFQ’s, it shows that we can receive anywhere from 40 to 110 files (within a single RFQ) and these files can contain anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 pages. As you can imagine, manually reviewing this is a time-consuming exercise.
· There is a reliance on a single person performing this initial review, as my experience enables to me to identify what files should be prioritized for review. If a large RFQ was allocated to an associate with less experience, they probably wouldn’t know where to start.
· After the initial document triage / review, even for a more experienced proposals engineer who can identify what documents need reviewing – there is a risk to the business that somewhere within the other files / (thousands of) pages, there could be a critical piece of information that if overlooked or missed, presents a risk to the business (e.g. a future discrepancy / non-conformance which has to be rectified at our cost).
· There is a further reliance on individual’s experience with regards to a product selection which meets the technical requirements of the RFQ. This applies to the safety shower itself, and the various optional fittings (such as pipe fittings, instrumentation, alarms, junction boxes, cabling, painting, etc.).
· When the products (& optional fittings) are identified, we then to need to build our quote in Salesforce/CPQ. This is a manual process (without any intuition built into the software we use) as we essentially have a very long list of products to select from, using a filter/search bar. i.e., there is no grouping by category, no prompts, or reminders of what could be selected (even if the answer is ‘No’ or N/A). The point I’m trying to convey is that the proposals engineer will take an RFQ and then start with a blank piece of paper (so again, reliant on an individual’s experience / product knowledge).
· As well as being clear on what we are quoting for – we also need to be clear on what we are not quoting for. Deviations need to be identified & clearly listed in our proposals. This is important because anything we don’t specifically raise as a deviation; will mean we are de-facto accepting the entire specification of the RFQ. This goes back to the risk to the business being that somewhere in a 5,000-page RFQ, could be a piece of information that later trips us up (‘the devil is in the detail’). Therefore, it can take time to not only interpret & select the product we are offering – but also to create our deviation list.
Hope this feedback helps.
Best regards,
Simon Walmsley
Proposals Engineer
Direct Line: +44 (0) 161 355 6077
Reception: +44 (0) 161 430 6618
Hughes Safety Showers
Response 3
James HamiltonJHamilton@hughes-safety.com
Simon Walmsley SWalmsley@hughes-safety.com;Bhumika Sachdev bsachdev@justrite.com;Daniel Englebretson
Deepak Bhat dbhat@justrite.com;Stephen Hudson SHudson@justrite.com;Matt Parr mparr@hughes-safety.com
HI All
As I have not been in the initial conversation I may have gone in the wrong direction here and this maybe too much detail, if so please let me know and I can possibly adjust the information.
The below are typically things that we come across when being asked to engineer a customer order.
The following areas are normally the areas that need investigation and further digging before we can complete all documentation or are already supplied in technical documentation that Simon has already touched on below
Paint specifications:
- Paint system to be used
- Inspection requirements such as NACE
Tagging specifications:
- Tagging/ name plate information to be included
- Tagging/ name plate size, material, text size, text font, and dual language requirements, attachment method
- Different requirements for different component tags for example electrical items need to have Traffolyte and mechanical components needs to be SS
Electrical specification:
- Cable requirements such as core colours, fire retardance, low smoke etc
- Temperature rating requirements
- ATEX/ IECEX/ ECAS etc certification requirements
Chiller specifications:
- Voltage
- Material
- Certification
- Tagging
PMI specification:
- What parts need to be tested, wetted parts only or all
- Does the inspection need to be witnessed
Material/Calibration certs:
- What items need calibration certs and are there any specific requirements
- Are there any specific material certs that are required?
LD’s:
- What are the LD terms?
- What are LD’s applicable for, delivery of material, docs etc
AVL
3rd party inspection requirements
I would also point out that at the initial bid stage some of the above is not actually known or it maybe something that develops as we get into the engineering process.
Response 4
Hi Bhumika, Daniel,
Further to your recent emails (& for contrast), I’ve added in some examples of the less complex RFQ’s that we can receive.
I’ve updated the attached summary document, with screenshot below: (the less complex ones are the bottom 3 rows).
| Quote Ref | Customer | Project Name | Value | No of Files | Total Pages |
| Q-21699 | Saipem | COMP2 | £162,773 | 110 | 3354 |
| Q-31108 | Tecnicas | Riyas | £2,086,015 | 87 | 2518 |
| Q-32705 | Saipem | COMP3 | £217,404 | 93 | 3217 |
| Q-32794 | Tecnicas | Stade LNG | £99,318 | 31 | 608 |
| Q-32855 | Saipem | Hail & Ghasha | £946,527 | 42 | 2353 |
| Q-32859 | NMDC | Ruwais | £952,246 | 112 | 4859 |
| Q-32976 | Tecnimont | SKIKDA | £467,613 | 70 | 2397 |
| Q-32332 | Tyco | ADNOC Train-9 | £124,682 | 2 | 4 |
| Q-26404 | Tyco | Harvest Ammonia | £58,519 | 2 | 16 |
| Q-31757 | Sanco | Meleiha | £144,725 | 3 | 33 |
As you can see, the number of files and total number of pages is significantly less.
This figures, as Tyco & Sanco are Fire Protection companies, not EPC’s.
The folders for the bottom 3 rows are added into the SharePoint location previously shared.
Hi Daniel, when you start to review these examples, you will find that the first 2 projects (Q-21699 & Q-31108) have a sub-folder named ‘TQ’s’. This stands for ‘Technical Queries’ & you’ll find an excel file that our customer sends to us (to complete & return). TQ’s are sent to us after we’ve submitted our initial quotation & acts as a final check, that we have fully interpreted their RFQ & our offer is compliant.
Best regards,
Simon Walmsley
Proposals Engineer
Direct Line: +44 (0) 161 355 6077
Reception: +44 (0) 161 430 6618
Hughes Safety Showers