Human-centered design systems and product experiences
Core services
01UI/UX Design02Web Development03Software Development042D/3D Experiences05App Development06AI Agents & Automation07Website DesignTechnical services
Frontend Engineering
React DevelopmentNext.js DevelopmentWeb ApplicationsEnterprise DashboardsSaaS PlatformsBackend & Infrastructure
API DevelopmentCloud InfrastructureDevOps & CI/CDBackend SystemsCustom SoftwareIndustries we serve
Technology & Software
AI RFP and Tender Response Agent
Requirements answered with evidence
An agent for bid teams.
An agent for bid teams. It pulls every requirement out of a tender, compares each with your approved evidence, drafts answers word for word from that evidence, and lists what you cannot yet prove instead of writing around it.
A tender is a long list of requirements and a short deadline. The team copies answers from the last bid, adjusts them late at night, and somewhere a sentence promises a certification, a reference or a delivery date that nobody checked. The risk in bid writing is not a weak answer. It is a confident one that turns out to be untrue after the contract is signed.
What exists today is a working demonstration on test data, which we can walk you through. It shows a tender with twelve requirements, six answered from approved evidence, one answered only as a labelled concept and five left as gaps, and an export refused while a reviewer's edit contains an unsupported claim. Connecting it to your own systems is the project.
Six jobs it carries through
Requirement extraction
Lists every requirement with its clause.
- Finds must, shall and should statements
- Keeps the clause number and line
- Separates mandatory from desirable
- Sets aside text that is not a requirement
Evidence matching
Compares each requirement with approved evidence.
- Uses only your evidence library
- Knows what kind of proof each item is
- Refuses a policy in place of a certificate
- Names related items that do not qualify
Sourced drafting
Drafts answers from the evidence itself.
- Uses the approved statement word for word
- Cites the evidence item
- Labels concept work as concept
- Labels your own products as your own
Gap list
Shows what cannot be answered yet.
- Certification without a certificate
- References without an approved reference
- Price, timing and service commitments without terms
- Requirements with no evidence at all
Review with claim checks
Lets a reviewer edit and checks the result.
- Keeps every edit and its author
- Flags new certifications and client claims
- Flags new figures, prices and durations
- Blocks the export until resolved
Export
Produces the matrix, the answers and the gaps.
- A compliance matrix by clause
- The responses with their sources
- The gap list with reasons
- Notes on text it did not follow
Where the Time Goes Now
Requirements missed
Clause 4.7 was mandatory, and it was read on the day of submission.
Old answers reused
A paragraph from a bid two years ago describes a team and a process that changed.
Claims nobody checked
A certification or a client reference appears because the question asked for one.
Concept work presented as delivered
A design study is described as a completed project.
No view of the gaps
Nobody knows which requirements have no evidence until the response is assembled.
Edits that undo the checks
A late edit adds a figure and nobody reviews it again.
How One Request Moves Through
An example of one case, in 6 steps. The same steps play in the picture at the top of this page.
Tender received
The document arrives. Its requirements are extracted, each with its clause and its line.
Evidence compared
Each requirement is matched against your approved evidence, by topic and by kind of proof.
Answers drafted
"The solution must provide role-based access" is answered from an approved statement, with its source.
Gaps listed
"The supplier must hold a security certification" has no certificate in the library, so nothing is written.
Reviewed
A reviewer rewrites an answer and adds a claim. The claim is flagged and the export is refused.
Exported
With the claim removed, the matrix, the answers and the gap list are exported for the bid owner.
Walk One Real Case Through It
Thirty minutes, one case from your own process. We map it against the workflow on this page and tell you plainly what can be reused from our demonstrations and what has to be built for your systems.
Where It Connects
The systems named here are the kind this agent works with. Which ones it connects to in your case is settled in the scope.
Tender documents
- Uploaded files
- a procurement portal's downloads
- email attachments
Evidence library
- Capability statements
- policies
- certificates
- approved references
- commercial terms
Past bids
- Earlier responses, used as a source only after review
Review
- The people who may edit and release a response
Output
- Your bid template in Word or Google Docs
Knowledge sources
- Company documents the evidence library is built from
It Will Not Write What You Cannot Prove
Six kinds of requirement can only be answered from evidence of exactly that kind: certification, client references, price, delivery time, service commitments and ownership. A policy cannot stand in for a certificate, and a concept cannot stand in for a delivered project. Where the evidence is missing, the requirement goes on the gap list and the answer stays empty.
After any edit, every certification, client, figure, price and duration in a response has to appear in the evidence it cites. Otherwise the response is flagged and cannot be exported.
- Every requirement with its clause
- Answers only from approved evidence
- Concept work labelled as concept
- Gaps listed, never filled
- Edits checked for new claims
- Nothing is submitted by the agent
Asked Before the First Call
Where does the evidence come from?
From a library you build and approve: capability statements, policies, certificates, references you may name, and commercial terms. Each item has an owner and says what kind of proof it is. The agent uses nothing else, so the quality of the response follows the quality of that library.
How is this different from the proposal and quotation agent?
A proposal starts from what you want to offer. A tender response starts from what the buyer requires, clause by clause, and has to show evidence for each. This agent is built around that matrix and its gap list. The proposal agent is built around scope, rates and terms.
Can it submit the response or decide whether we should bid?
No. It produces a draft, a compliance matrix and a gap list for your bid owner. Whether to bid, what to price and what to promise are decisions for people, and submission happens in your own process.
What exists today?
A working demonstration on test data. It shows a tender with twelve requirements, six answered from approved evidence, one answered only as a labelled concept and five left as gaps, and an export refused while a reviewer's edit contains an unsupported claim. It is not connected to live systems, so the project is the integration with your own systems, your rules and a controlled pilot.
Bring a Tender You Already Answered
We will run it against a small evidence library built from your real material and compare the matrix and the gap list with what your team submitted.