Buyer Workspace
AI-assisted evaluation — the analysis is automated, the decision is yours
After the recorded opening, every submission is checked against the criteria you published. The workspace surfaces what each bidder said, where they said it and what is missing. It does not decide anything: evaluators score, the committee decides, and the record shows who decided what.
- Every mandatory requirement is checked against the submitted documents, with a page-level citation behind each finding.
- Missing, expired or unreadable documents are flagged before scoring starts, so clarifications go out early instead of after the deadline.
- Side-by-side comparison across bidders for price, compliance and the criteria you defined — no exported spreadsheets.
- Evaluators enter their own scores and written justification; the system never assigns a final score on its own.
- Consensus scoring keeps each evaluator's original entry, the moderated result and the reasoning together in one record.
- The full evaluation record — findings, citations, scores, justifications and who signed off — stays with the tender for review or audit.
Ranked submissions
Closed 14 October · 4 bidsSupplier A
Meets all mandatory criteria; strongest technical response
Supplier B
Compliant; fewer comparable references
Supplier C
Pricing schedule incomplete — clarification required
Supplier D
Excluded: mandatory certificate expired
Compliance checked before scoring
Requirements are read straight from your tender documents, so the checklist matches what you actually published rather than a generic template.
18 requirements extracted
Export CSVValid tax clearance certificate
Page 7, clause 5.1 — mandatory
ISO 9001 quality certification
Page 8, clause 5.4 — mandatory
Three references, similar scope
Page 9, clause 6.2 — scored
Local content declaration
Page 11, annexure C — mandatory
Registered supplier database entry
Page 6, clause 4.3 — mandatory
Gap detected
No local content declaration found in your documents. Required before submission.
Where the line sits
The analysis does the reading: hundreds of pages per submission, checked against the published criteria and cited back to the source. People do the judging. No award is recommended, ranked or approved automatically, and no score is written without a named evaluator behind it. That separation is what keeps an evaluation defensible.