A sample built on fictional content. Holcombe Mechanical is not a real company and this reflects no real engagement.
Holcombe Mechanical is a fictional $16M commercial mechanical contractor. It runs Microsoft 365, BuildOps for field service, and QuickBooks for the books, and its pricing knowledge has been organized and approved. The drafter works inside those systems. Each step below is the screen a real person would be looking at.
The diagnosis measured this workflow. Margin on comparable rooftop retrofits varied 4.5 points between the three estimators. The blended gap is 1.8 points on $8.6M of project revenue, about $155,000 a year, and $85,000 to $110,000 of that looks recoverable in the first twelve months. About 28 percent of estimating time went to chasing current vendor pricing and working out which version of the workbook to use.
Doug, we are ready to move on the two rooftop units at Store 118 that failed inspection in June. Mechanical schedule attached. We need the work done at night, sales floor stays open. Can you have a bid to us by Friday? Corporate wants a repair-versus-replace comparison this time.
PDFStore118_RTU_schedule.pdf12:04The drafter watches this shared inbox from inside Holcombe’s Microsoft 365 tenant. It picked up the RFQ, read the attachment, pulled the Store 118 history from BuildOps, and started drafting. Nobody did anything yet; Doug has not even seen the email.
12:29The draft never goes to the customer. It lands in the channel the estimators already watch, twenty-seven minutes after Dana’s email, and the button opens the review screen. Doug picks it up after lunch.
| Line | Amount | Source, click to open |
|---|---|---|
| (2) 15-ton packaged rooftop units, gas/electric | $47,300 | |
| Curb adapters and sheet metal transitions | $6,180 | |
| Crane, two night picks | $4,400 | |
| Controls tie-in and startup | $3,850 | |
| Demo and disposal | $2,760 | |
| Labor, 148 hours, journeyman and apprentice blend | $16,730 | |
| Grocery rooftop adder, labor +12% | $2,010 | |
| Bid total · margin 24.1% | $83,230 |
12:29This is the page the Teams button opens, on Holcombe’s own SharePoint. Click any source to see exactly where a number came from. Nothing ships from this screen; the draft waits for Doug.
Two picks changed to three. His note, saved with the line: “Store won’t clear the east lot for staging. Third pick, or we pay the crane to wait.” New total $85,430, margin 23.6%, still over the floor; the math re-ran on save.
1:42Same screen, Doug’s half of it. He edits, decides the two flags, and approves. The system drafted; the person judged. That order never reverses.
Proposal: replacement of two rooftop units, Store 118
Thank you for the opportunity. Per your request of this week and the mechanical schedule provided, we propose to replace the two 15-ton rooftop units serving Store 118. All work is scheduled at night, with the sales floor protected and open for business throughout.
| Equipment: (2) 15-ton packaged rooftop units, gas/electric, curb-ready | $47,300 |
| Installation: night work, three crane picks, curb adapters, sheet metal, roof protection | $31,520 |
| Controls tie-in and startup | $3,850 |
| Demolition and disposal of existing units | $2,760 |
| Total, complete | $85,430 |
We evaluated repairing the existing units as requested. Given their age, the June inspection findings, and the remaining compressor life, repair does not deliver acceptable economics or reliability for the store, and we recommend replacement. We are glad to walk corporate through the comparison.
Respectfully submitted,
2:03This is what Dana receives: a clean proposal on Holcombe letterhead, filled from the template they already use, sent five minutes after Doug approved. The citations, the flags, and the log never leave Holcombe’s side; the customer just gets a fast, consistent, correct bid.
This is the whole machine. Four places the knowledge already lives, one agent inside the tenant, checks that are code, a person with the last word, and edits that flow back in.
The draft was ready twenty-seven minutes after Dana’s email. Doug’s review took about twenty minutes, most of it on the repair-versus-replace decision, which is exactly where his time belongs. Before the system, a bid like this took him most of two days to turn around.
At a distributor, this is the quote desk drafting from pricing tiers and availability. At a professional-services firm, it is proposals drafted from past engagements and approved rates. The pattern is the same: drafted from what the company knows, every number showing its source, a person approving.