For bid teams, procurement, and commercial review

Structured review for complex RFPs

We turn large RFP packs into a clear, review-ready view — so requirements, timelines, and late changes are visible before decisions are made.

For teams who review RFPs — and teams who issue them.

Reviewing 1,000s of pages under deadlineAddenda and clarifications arriving lateRequirements spread across attachmentsOne missed term can change the outcome

RFP work, two directions

For teams who issue RFPs and teams who review them

The job is different. The risk is the same: important details are spread across documents, addenda, and clarifications. We structure the full pack so review is calmer, faster, and less error-prone.

Reviewing RFPs

Turn large RFP packs into a review-ready view: requirements, dates, and dependencies — with signals where information shifts or remains unclear.

  • • Consolidated obligations and assumptions
  • • Signals for inconsistencies, gaps, and late changes
  • • Exportable pack for internal review

Issuing RFPs

Validate that the RFP holds together before release: requirements are consistent, timelines are clear, and clarifications are traceable.

  • • Reduced ambiguity and clarification rounds
  • • A clear requirements and timeline structure
  • • A release-ready pack you can stand behind

The risk is not the volume. It’s what stays hidden in the pack.

Large RFPs spread key requirements across the main document, schedules, attachments, addenda, and clarifications.

Terms and timelines shift across versions.

Requirements are duplicated, or phrased differently, in different places.

Late clarifications never make it into the final response or release pack.

By the time the issue surfaces, the decision has already been made.

How it works

A calmer way to work through complex RFPs

01

Upload the RFP pack

Core RFP, schedules, attachments, addenda, clarifications, and drafts.

02

Structured for review

Requirements, dates, and dependencies are organised into a clear, source-linked view.

03

Signals surfaced

We flag where information shifts, remains unclear, or appears inconsistent across the pack.

04

Export the review pack

A structured output your team can work from — and share internally with confidence.

Core capability

Make the pack reviewable

We keep language plain and outputs traceable to source. The aim is a calm, structured review.

Inconsistencies

Requirements that differ across documents, schedules, and addenda

Version drift

Changes over time that alter obligations or scope

Gaps

Missing inputs, unclear assumptions, or incomplete coverage

Dependencies

Dates, sequencing, and responsibilities that create downstream risk

What you get

Outputs designed for review

Requirements map

Consolidated obligations, assumptions, and dependencies

Signals

Items to check: inconsistencies, gaps, and late changes

Snapshot

A one-page view for internal review and sign-off

Export pack

A consistent, source-linked pack ready to share

Example RFP pack

A small example to show the idea: when documents are reviewed together, signals become visible earlier.

Source-linkedBuilt for sign-off
Reviewing an RFP

A review view that keeps requirements, dates, and changes in one place

A bid team is preparing a response to a multi-workstream RFP. The pack includes a core document, schedules, addenda, and clarifications. Deadline pressure makes it hard to see how the pieces relate.

Pack sequence
A structured sequence of key documents
Day 1
Core RFP
Baseline scope and evaluation approach
RFP_Core.pdf
Day 3
Schedules
Commercial terms and delivery milestones
Schedules.pdf
Day 5
Addendum
Scope adjustment and new deliverables
Addendum_1.pdf
Day 7
Clarifications
Q&A that changes interpretation of requirements
Clarifications.pdf
Day 9
Response draft
Internal draft prior to sign-off
Response_Draft.docx
Signals
Items worth checking before sign-off
  • A requirement is phrased differently in the schedules and the addendum
  • A timeline assumption in the response draft differs from the schedules
  • A clarification introduces a dependency that is not reflected in the draft
  • Responsibility between workstreams is unclear in one section
  • A late change affects evaluation criteria but is not referenced in the response
Snapshot for review
A one-page view for internal circulation
  • Consolidated requirements across core, schedules, addenda, and clarifications
  • Signals for wording drift and late changes affecting scope and evaluation
  • Timeline dependencies called out where assumptions differ
  • Source-linked references for sign-off and internal circulation
Outcome
Proceed once signals are addressed and the response is aligned to the latest pack.
The draft requires an alignment pass before submission.

Individually, each document reads as reasonable. Across the pack, obligations shift.

Small inconsistencies can become disqualifying, or create avoidable delivery risk later.

Whether you are reviewing a response or issuing the pack, the goal is the same.

A clear, consistent view before commitment.

We operate only on information you provide. Outputs are traceable to source material.

Clarity before submission or release

RFP work becomes expensive when teams discover ambiguity late. A structured pack makes requirements, dates, and changes visible early — while there is still time to act.

Book a conversation

No commitment. 20 minutes. We listen first.

Security

Designed for confidential work

Clients retain ownership of their data

No data resale

Access controls and audit logs

Operates only on the information you provide

Available under NDA

Questions

Is this for teams reviewing RFPs or teams issuing them?

Both. Reviewing teams use it to align requirements, dates, and clarifications before submission. Issuing teams use it to validate that an RFP pack is consistent and clear before release.

What do you mean by "signals"?

Signals are items worth checking before sign-off: wording drift between documents, late changes that are not reflected elsewhere, unclear dependencies, missing inputs, or timelines that require confirmation.

Do you give advice on how to respond to an RFP?

No. We do not provide bid strategy or legal advice. We structure the pack and surface signals so your team can review and decide with better visibility.

How is this different from search?

Search helps you find a clause. This helps you see whether the full pack holds together: how requirements shift across addenda, what changed late, and where assumptions differ between sections.

Can you handle large RFP libraries (hundreds or thousands)?

Yes. Teams use the same approach to review single RFP packs and to work through large RFP libraries over time. We can start with one pack and expand once the output format is working for your workflow.

Where does the data sit?

We operate on the information you provide, with client ownership retained. Deployments can be configured for controlled environments and access controls. We can share a security overview under NDA.

Have a question that isn’t covered here? Get in touch and we’ll get back to you within one working day.

See an RFP pack in a review-ready format

Walk through the example, or bring your own pack and we’ll show you the output.

Get in touch

Let’s talk about your review

Whether you have a specific engagement in mind or want to understand how the platform works, we are happy to walk you through it.

Location

London, United Kingdom

We’ll respond within one working day.