Here's your proposal, written for Upwork as clean text (no formatting, so it pastes directly into the proposal box). --- Upwork proposal I'm a Make Certified Partner and a HubSpot Solutions Partner, and I've noticed the part clients remember is almost never the tool. Your last zaps didn't break because Zapier is weak. They broke because nothing monitored them and no one owned them after handoff. That is the real problem here, and it is the one I build against. I rebuilt a broken Zapier setup for a small marketing agency in Make. Every failure now fires an alert, and I left them a one-page guide so anyone on the team can fix a broken step. Eight months on, zero silent failures. Before that I built a multi-source lead intake for a roofing company, pulling web, phone and ad leads into HubSpot with duplicate checks and round-robin routing. First response time went from 26 hours to 40 minutes. The routing there is the same shape you need for kitchen, bathroom and full remodel. On the summaries: I added Claude lead digests to a clinic's intake flow, so the front desk reads budget, timeline and project type off a short summary instead of the raw inquiry. Call prep went from about five minutes to under one. I'll be direct about the one thing your brief undersells. "A fairly quick setup" is quick to build and slower to make reliable. Three intake sources means three places duplicates can enter, and Gravity Forms changes fields often. I handle that with a single intake path and dedup on email plus phone, so a form edit never silently drops a lead. One question: if a lead routes to the wrong salesperson, who on your side should see that, and how would they know? I price fixed, after a short scoping call where we map your three sources and your salesperson-by-type rules. I also leave a short handover note so your team isn't waiting on me to change a field next quarter. Happy to walk through the two systems above in detail. --- Opener used: Combined credentials (Make Certified Partner + HubSpot Solutions Partner), because the post names Make, HubSpot, Slack, n8n, Zapier and Claude, all of which are in Sara's stack. The credential is paired in the same breath with the pattern the post gives away: the Zapier failure was a monitoring and ownership problem, not a tool problem. That reframes the job from "connect three forms" to "build something that survives a field change," which is exactly Sara's second case study. Red flags spotted (not in the proposal, just so you know): - "This should be a fairly quick setup" undersells the work. Dedup across three sources plus routing plus AI summaries is a few solid days, and scope tends to creep once form fields change. Good reason to scope on a call and price fixed after. - The post never names who owns the automation once it's live, or who receives the failure alerts. That is the same gap that killed the last setup. - Three intake sources with frequently changing Gravity Forms fields is the exact fragility that burned them before, so error handling and a written handover have to be in scope, not an afterthought. - Fixed price is fine, but confirm the decision-maker on the call before committing. Want me to tighten the word count, adjust the tone, or add a subject line for an email version?