Procurement Specialist

We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About Us? Actually we need to reformat job posting into clean semantic HTML. Use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). Do NOT repeat the job title as a heading. Do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings — fold minor metadata into a short

or drop it. Preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail. Remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. IMPORTANT: include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it — never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text (e.g. "commensurate with experience", "not specified", "N/A", "varies", "TBD") and never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them. Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. Output ONLY the HTML fragment — no /, no markdown code fences. We need to decide which sections to include based on content. The posting includes: - About Us (company description) - Role Overview (description) - Responsibilities (multiple bullet points) - Requirements (list) - Preferred Qualifications (list) - Compensation & Benefits (list of benefits and base pay) - Our Commitment (EEO statement) - but we need to remove EEO boilerplate? The instruction says remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate. So we should remove the "Our Commitment" EEO paragraph. It's boilerplate. So we drop that. Also we have "About Us" which is not exactly one of the prescribed headings but we could treat as "About the role"? Actually "About Us" is company description. The instruction says use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It doesn't forbid other headings, but suggests those as examples. We could keep "About Us" as a heading? Might be okay but they said use

for section headings (e.g. About the role...). Probably we should map sections to those headings where appropriate. "About Us" could be "About the role"? But that's not exactly. However we could keep "About Us" as a heading but they didn't forbid other headings. The instruction: "use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It implies we should use those headings for those sections if present. For "About Us", maybe we can treat as "About the role"? But the role overview is separate. The "About Us" is company description; we could keep as a section with heading "About Us". Not prohibited. However they said "use

for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." That suggests we should use those headings for those types of content. For company description, maybe we can use "About the role"? But that seems odd. I'd keep "About Us" as a heading; it's still a section heading. The instruction didn't say we cannot use other headings, just that we should use h3 for section headings (the examples). So using h3 for About Us is fine. We need to include sections only when posting has real specific content. All sections have content. We need to use

• for any list of duties/requirements/benefits, and

  for prose. We need to preserve all substantive information. We need to remove duplicated lines, boilerplate, etc. Let's extract content. About Us paragraph: "At Arbor Energy & Resources Corporation ("Arbor Energy"), we’re creating technology to power our lives while protecting the planet that sustains them. Our advanced power systems deliver clean, reliable baseload electricity with zero operating emissions—modular, fuel-flexible, and engineered for the realities of today’s energy demand. At the core is a supercritical CO₂ turbine with integrated carbon capture, designed to bring carbon-neutral power online quickly at meaningful scale. Our team includes aerospace engineers, combustion experts, and systems thinkers with a shared goal: to build technology worthy of the world we want to live in. While many of us began our journeys looking to the stars, we’re applying that expertise here at home to deliver dependable, emission-free baseload power and a future of lasting abundance. If you share our values and are drawn to rigorous work with lasting impact, we’d love to learn more about you. Come build what the future will run on. Steward our planet: We build for tomorrow, ensuring every bolt we tighten and every hand we lend leaves our environment stronger than we found it. Lead with Love: We champion the success of our people, partners, and planet, nurturing excellence through camaraderie and rigor. Explore the Uncharted: We embrace the unknown with curiosity, using courage and discipline to transform uncertainty into opportunity." That's a lot of prose. We'll keep as

  . Role Overview: "Arbor Energy is seeking a Procurement Specialist to help build the foundation of a world-class supplier ecosystem as we scale from early prototypes to production-ready hardware. You will work directly with the Head of Supply Chain to manage increasing purchasing volume, expand our supplier base, and ensure we stay ahead of both current and future supply needs. This is an onsite opportunity in our El Segundo, CA office. You will collaborate closely with our Turbomachinery and Combustion teams, as well as Systems, Test, and Manufacturing Engineering. This role is central to how Arbor's values show up in our supplier ecosystem — leading with love in how we communicate, stewarding our planet through responsible sourcing, and exploring the uncharted as we build new supply pathways for novel hardware. As Arbor grows, this role may evolve into a senior or lead position and help shape the future Supply Chain team." We'll keep as

  . Responsibilities: Several bullet points grouped under headings: Supplier & Purchasing Operations, Sourcing & Commercial Support, Supplier Discovery & Research, Cross-Functional Collaboration. Each has multiple bullet points. We need to output as

  • for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. Should we keep subheadings? Possibly we can keep them as

    or just plain text? The instruction only mentions using

    for section headings. It doesn't forbid other headings. But we could keep the subheadings as or just plain text inside

    . However to preserve structure, we could keep them as

    inside

    ? But that might be overkill. Simpler: treat each bullet as

    and include the heading text as part of the bullet. Eg: "

    Supplier & Purchasing Operations: Manage day-to-day communication ..." but that adds markup not requested. Probably better to keep as separate sections: each responsibility category as a

    ? But the instruction says use

    for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we should have a single

    Responsibilities

    and then a list (

    • ) of all duties. We can combine all bullet points into a flat list. That preserves all info. Let's extract all bullet points: From Supplier & Purchasing Operations: - Manage day-to-day communication with a broad set of suppliers - Track delivery status, performance, and risks across multiple programs - Surface delays early and communicate openly with internal teams - Support purchasing as volume increases over the next 3–6 months - Take and make calls to unblock issues and maintain momentum From Sourcing & Commercial Support: - Analyze supplier capabilities, market conditions, and technology roadmaps to support sourcing strategy - Identify potential suppliers and develop sourcing approaches for internal stakeholders - Prepare sourcing recommendations and present clear options to leadership - Support negotiations for NDAs, terms & conditions, and RFQ-related agreements - Compare supplier quotes, cost breakdowns, and commercial terms - Support supplier capability assessments and technical reviews - Maintain accurate pricing, supplier data, and sourcing roadmaps in internal systems From Supplier Discovery & Research: - Identify, evaluate, and qualify new suppliers for current and future builds - Conduct research to expand our supplier base as complexity grows - Gather technical and commercial data to support supplier qualification From Cross-Functional Collaboration: - Partner with Turbomachinery, Combustion, Systems, Test, and Manufacturing Engineering - Provide clear updates on supplier status, risks, and mitigation plans - Help establish the culture, expectations, and working norms of the Supply Chain function We'll combine these into a single
      list. Requirements: list: - 3+ years of procurement, supply chain, engineering, supplier-facing experience, or related field - Experience working with multiple suppliers or external partners - Strong analytical skills and attention to detail - Experience analyzing data to track supplier performance, cost trends, or sourcing decisions - Comfortable with high-volume communication (calls, emails, follow-ups) - Must have the ability to travel to supplier facilities, including on short notice when business needs require, and comply with applicable visitor, safety, security, and export-control protocols - Open, proactive communicator — especially when issues arise - Ability to disagree constructively and commit once aligned - Reliable follow-through and ownership mindset - Light technical literacy (comfortable reading basic drawings, understanding part descriptions, and discussing manufacturing processes) Preferred Qualifications: - Experience with specialty metals and advanced manufacturing processes, including additive manufacturing, castings, coatings, heat treat, or custom/high-mix low-volume machining - Sales or customer-facing background - Strong research skills - Willingness to travel occasionally for supplier visits Compensation & Benefits: list: - Pre-IPO stock options - Medical, dental, and vision insurance (Arbor covers 90% for employees) - Basic life insurance fully covered - Health savings account (HSA) with matching - Flexible savings account (FSA) - Unlimited PTO - 12+ company holidays, including Earth Day! - 401(k) - Commuter benefits - Annual learning and development stipend - And more! - Base Pay: $90,000 - $115,000 USD/year. The salary is subject to the applicant's skills, qualifications, experience, and geographic location. We need to decide whether to separate Pay and Benefits sections. The instruction says: never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them. The posting does state benefits and base pay. So we could have a Benefits section and a Pay section. However they said prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. Could combine Benefits and Pay into one section "Compensation & Benefits". That's already a heading in the posting. We could use

      Compensation & Benefits

      and then list benefits and pay as
      • . That seems appropriate. Schedule: not mentioned, so we omit. Qualifications: we have Requirements and Preferred Qualifications. Could combine into Qualifications section? But they gave examples: Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We could have Requirements and Preferred Qualifications as separate sections under

        Requirements

        and

        Preferred Qualifications

        . Or we could combine into Qualifications. The instruction says use

        for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we can have Requirements and Qualifications sections. Since we have both Requirements and Preferred Qualifications, we could treat Requirements as mandatory, Preferred Qualifications as optional. Could have two sections: Requirements and Preferred Qualifications (maybe under Qualifications). But they said "Qualifications" as a possible heading