Must / should / nice breakdown
Every requirement extracted from the full document set and sorted by weight — hard eligibility criteria first, scored criteria next, preferences last.
We build AI tender analysis systems that read the full document set — the notice, the specification, the pricing schedule, every annex — and hand your bid team a structured requirements audit and a clear go/no-go read. So you decide whether a tender is worth chasing before you spend a week finding out.
The challenge
A single public tender or enterprise RFP routinely arrives as thirty-plus files: the notice, the specification, annexes, response templates, pricing schedules, clarifications published mid-cycle. Mandatory requirements sit in the fine print of one of them. Miss one, and the bid is non-compliant no matter how good the offer is.
So somebody senior reads all of it, by hand, against a deadline — and does it again for the next tender, and the one after that. Most of that time is spent on bids the company was never going to win.
Why generic tools don't close the gap. Teams that try to solve this in-house usually get to a tool that is roughly right and then stall — because the bar for tender work isn't roughly right. A requirement that is missed or misread is a disqualified bid, so the practical bar sits at 95–100% coverage, and that last stretch is where in-house efforts tend to stop.
What you get
The output is not a summary. It is a working document that maps every obligation in the tender to a decision your team has to make.
Every requirement extracted from the full document set and sorted by weight — hard eligibility criteria first, scored criteria next, preferences last.
Requirements are reconciled across the notice, specification, annexes, and clarifications, so contradictions and duplicates surface instead of hiding.
Each requirement points back to where it came from, so a reviewer can verify a line in seconds rather than re-reading the pack.
What you clearly satisfy, what you partly satisfy, and what you cannot — the shortlist your bid/no-bid conversation actually turns on.
A single readable report with the reasoning behind the recommendation, ready to put in front of whoever signs off on bidding.
Delivered where your team already works — an internal tool, an export, or an integration into the system you run bids in today.
A person still signs off on the bid decision. The system removes the reading, not the judgement.
Send us one tender pack. We'll show you what the audit looks like on it.
Start a conversationFrom our work
Tender & RFP analysis · Ireland
This is client work, so the product name, the company, and how the analysis works internally stay confidential. Timings are the honest working ranges, not a single measured before-and-after.
We're preparing a public demo where you can run a sample tender through the analysis yourself. Until it's up, we'll walk you through it on a call — on your documents, not a canned example.
Working together
We don't sell one shape of project. Tender work starts small far more often than it starts big.
For a well-defined piece of work — an audit of one tender pack, a prototype on your own bids. We agree the outcome upfront, estimate each feature, and do our best to stay within 20% of the estimate.
For bigger or fuzzier work: a paid Discovery (3–5 days, $1,500–3,000, fixed price agreed upfront) → artefacts, a plan, and a priced proposal. You keep the artefacts either way.
For an ongoing bid platform: a monthly retainer of reserved days for features and support — how we run our longest engagement today.
FAQ
A structured requirements audit — must/should/nice breakdown, cross-checks across the whole document set, a compliance and gap view — plus a go/no-go report with the reasoning behind it. Where it makes sense, we deliver it as a tool your team runs itself rather than a one-off document.
Minutes rather than days. On the platform we run today a full audit takes about 15 minutes, typically 5–20 depending on how large the document set is.
That constraint drives the design. Requirements are cross-checked across documents and each one points back to its source, so your team verifies rather than re-reads, and a person always signs off on the bid decision. We agree the accuracy bar with you upfront and test against your own past tenders — we don't promise numbers we haven't measured on your documents.
That is the normal case, and it is the reason the work is worth automating. Large mixed packs — notice, specification, annexes, response templates, pricing schedules, clarifications published later — are what these systems are built for.
Yes. We deliver into the place your bid team already works — an internal tool, an export into your templates, or an integration with the system you manage bids in today.
Yes, and we can go further than a standard agreement: if your documents cannot leave your network, we deploy the analysis on your own infrastructure so nothing is sent to an external service.
We estimate each feature upfront and do our best to stay within 20% of the estimate. For larger or less-defined work we start with a paid discovery phase and estimate the build once the scope is clear.
Next step
Tell us how many bids your team reviews a month and how long each one takes. We'll come back with what an audit would look like on your documents.