Procurement comparison assistant
Evidence organization follows disclosed criteria without replacing evaluators.
- For
- Public procurement evaluation teams
- Solves
- Supplier proposals vary in structure and conceal missing responses.
- Delivers
- Evaluation evidence matrix
- Built in
- about 5 weeks of creation time, MVP in 6 days
- Investment
- $11,000 for the MVP, $44,000 for the full product
- Run it
- Inside your business, or as part of your offer to clients
What it does
For public procurement evaluation teams, turn proposals, disclosed criteria and scoring guidance into evaluation evidence matrix.
- Map proposal sections.
- Identify omissions.
- Normalize comparable fields.
- Cite supplier claims.
- Capture evaluator judgments.
- Preserve assessment history.
What goes in, what comes out
- Proposals
- Disclosed criteria
- Scoring guidance
AI drafts, people review. Structured comparison and clarification workspace.
- Evaluation evidence matrix
How it works
The workflow
- InStart with
Proposals, disclosed criteria and scoring guidance
- 1
Define comparison fields
- 2
Upload source versions or offers
- 3
Extract candidate values
- 4
Normalize only agreed units
- 5
Inspect differences
- 6
Resolve questions with reviewers
- 7
Export an evidence-linked comparison
- OutFinish with
Evaluation evidence matrix
AI does the heavy lifting, people stay in charge
Align document sections and extract proposed comparable fields. Deterministic checks handle units and arithmetic. Preserve original wording and label assumptions. Professional reviewers assess the meaning and significance of differences.
What your team sees
Key screens: Comparison matrix, evidence panel, evaluator notes. Use a side-by-side matrix with the same fields for every document or option. Clicking a value reveals its original passage. Highlight missing, different and uncertain items separately. Provide a clarification queue and reviewer annotations before exporting a decision pack. In this product, the first view is comparison matrix, followed by evidence panel and evaluator notes.
Accounts and administration
Document versions, field definitions, source references, reviewer corrections, unresolved questions, comparison history and exportable matrices.
Integrations and data access
Official publications, agency document stores and approved service workflows. Document repositories, procurement or contract records and spreadsheet exports. Preserve originals and avoid writing back interpretations without approval. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.
How we build it
We build with our own AI software development factory, so most implementations take days to a few weeks of creation time, not months. You see working software at every step, and exact timing depends on availability.
- 1
Scoping call
Day 1Thirty minutes on your process, your data and how you want to run it: for your own team, or for your clients. You get a fixed scope and price for the MVP.
- 2
MVP
6 daysOne buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: map proposal sections; identify omissions. Manual review in the loop. Built by our AI software factory.
- 3
Paid pilot
7 daysAccounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- 4
Full product
3 weeksRemaining modules: cite supplier claims; capture evaluator judgments; preserve assessment history. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
- 5
Run and improve
MonthlyWe host, monitor and improve it for a fixed monthly fee, or hand it over to your team. How the retainer works.
Why we start with an MVP
An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.
- Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will public procurement evaluation teams use it to solve "supplier proposals vary in structure and conceal missing responses"?
- Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
- Run a paid pilot. Compare a known set already reviewed by a domain expert.
- Measure, then decide. Track evidence completeness and evaluator preparation time. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.
MVP scope for this solution. Begin with public procurement evaluation teams and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: map proposal sections; identify omissions. Provide operator assistance for the third module: normalize comparable fields. Deliver evaluation evidence matrix through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.
After the MVP. After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: cite supplier claims; capture evaluator judgments; preserve assessment history. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.
What the build depends on. Document alignment, field provenance, unit normalization, missing-value handling and reviewer correction. Similar-looking documents may contain materially different terms.
Investment
A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. You pay per phase, so you can stop after the MVP.
- Phase 1
MVP
One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: map proposal sections; identify omissions. Manual review in the loop.
- Phase 2
Paid pilot
Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.
- Phase 3
Full product
Remaining modules: cite supplier claims; capture evaluator judgments; preserve assessment history. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.
Indicative total, MVP to full product$44,000about 5 weeks of creation time · start with the MVP from $11,000
Running costs per month
A rough indication of monthly hosting and AI model costs once it is live, not tested. Real costs depend on usage, file sizes and the models chosen.
| Stage | Hosting and infrastructure | AI usage | Total per month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilotabout 3 customers | $50–$100 | $50–$100 | $100–$200 |
| Full productabout 50 customers | $190–$380 | $350–$700 | $540–$1,080 |
Run it or resell it
For your own team
Public procurement evaluation teams run it inside the business: proposals, disclosed criteria and scoring guidance in, evaluation evidence matrix out, reviewed by your people.
As part of your offer
Agencies, consultancies and software companies can offer it to their own clients under their brand. We build and maintain it; you sell and deliver it.
Your brand, or this one
Run it under your own brand, or start from this concept style.
- primary
#2f9127 - accent
#c954c7 - surface
#e6f1e4 - ink
#22201e
- Headings
- Playfair Display
- Text
- Source Sans 3
- Voice
- Plain-spoken, neutral, accountable
Selling it to your own clients: the go-to-market playbook
Pricing to test
Test USD 300-1,500 for one bounded comparison package, then USD 150-600 monthly for recurring volume with review limits. Complex expert interpretation is separately priced. Figures are hypotheses.
Message to test
Procurement comparison assistant for public procurement evaluation teams. Evidence organization follows disclosed criteria without replacing evaluators. Demonstrate the claim through a structured comparison of sample bids.
Where to find buyers
Procurement training and consulting firms
Lead magnet
A structured comparison of sample bids
The first 30 days
- Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: public procurement evaluation teams. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process.
- Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a structured comparison of sample bids.
- Week 3: present it through procurement training and consulting firms and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot.
- Week 4: review evidence completeness, evaluator preparation time, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
Paid pilot
Compare a known set already reviewed by a domain expert. Check meaningful differences, false alarms and missing fields. Measure reviewer time including corrections rather than extraction speed alone. For this solution, use proposals, disclosed criteria and scoring guidance and evaluate evaluation evidence matrix. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for evidence completeness, evaluator preparation time. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.
Success metrics
Evidence completeness, evaluator preparation time
Retention and expansion
Save reviewer-approved comparison fields and recurring document formats. Offer repeat comparisons and explicit updates when the source options change.
Why clients would pick it
A niche comparison schema, reviewed extraction examples and clear handling of the differences that matter to a specific buyer. For this solution, build around evidence organization follows disclosed criteria without replacing evaluators. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
Alternatives and positioning
Spreadsheet comparisons, professional reviewers, document diff tools and manual quote or contract review. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: evidence organization follows disclosed criteria without replacing evaluators. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Main delivery costs
Document parsing, field alignment, source verification, expert interpretation, clarification rounds and changing document formats.
Safeguards
Preserve official source versions, accessibility and audit records. Confirm agency-specific procurement, records and data handling requirements during discovery. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.