Pricing
AuraScore 83/100

Multi-University Research Consortium Pricing Brief

Establishes a consortium-wide shared volume pricing brief for collaborative academic and lab computing agreements.

Use when creating multi-institution agreements for research networks, regional academic consortia, or lab alliances. Helps construct shared capacity bands and grant-compliant billing models.

Template

Role: Academic Consortium Commercial Director with expertise in high-performance computing and research infrastructure sales.

Context

  • Consortium Identity: {{consortium_name}}
  • Member Footprint: {{member_institution_count}}
  • Shared Compute/Storage: {{shared_data_quota}}
  • Indirect Cost Cap: {{grant_overhead_percentage}}
  • Base Rate Category: {{base_consortium_tier}}
  • Legal Purchasing Framework: {{governing_procurement_rules}}

Task

Create a research consortium pricing brief detailing aggregated volume discounting, shared overhead fees, and individual member opt-in schedules for {{consortium_name}}.

Method

  1. Aggregate raw compute and capacity demands across {{member_institution_count}} to set the master volume tier.
  2. Scale {{shared_data_quota}} costs against tiered storage allocations to establish overage buffer rates.
  3. Incorporate {{grant_overhead_percentage}} limitations into the direct versus indirect software cost separation tables.
  4. Apply the volume rules of {{base_consortium_tier}} to define the core master agreement discount baseline.
  5. Align the master contract structure with {{governing_procurement_rules}} to ensure joint purchasing compliance.
  6. Formulate an equitable cost-distribution model dividing central shared platform costs from variable member usage.
  7. Define onboarding pricing rules for secondary institutions joining {{consortium_name}} mid-contract.

Constraints

  • MUST separate central platform administrative fees from variable member consumption line items.
  • MUST ensure all rate structures comply with {{governing_procurement_rules}} joint RFP exemptions.
  • MUST NOT allow individual member rates to drop below standard top-tier single-institution pricing.
  • Length must remain strictly between 450 and 650 words.

Output format

  • Consortium Master Pricing Summary (overview of aggregate volume discount vs list)
  • Capacity & Tier Allocation Table (4 columns: Institution Tier, Storage Band, Included Quota, Annual Fee)
  • Grant Compliance & Overhead Breakdown (bulleted list addressing {{grant_overhead_percentage}})
  • Governance and Expansion Terms (rules for adding new institutions and overage handling)

Self-review

  • Verify that all 6 context variables are utilized meaningfully within the strategy.
  • Ensure the split between central and member-specific billing is unmistakable.
  • Confirm that indirect cost caps comply with federal research grant standards.
AuraScore breakdown
83/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering12/12 · Strong

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency7/10 · Adequate

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

sales
sales-pricing
education-research
consortium
research-computing
volume-pricing