BidsEval.AI reads every RFP, RFQ, RFI, and prequalification the way your best evaluator would, at a volume no committee can match. Dozens of documents, hundreds of pages per bidder, returned as scored, cited, challenge‑proof analysis. The committee always makes the final decision.
Billions of dollars in contracts flow through evaluation committees every year, and the people running them are handed an impossible brief with the wrong tools. Specialist submissions to judge across every domain. Hundreds of pages, nights and weekends. An audit trail held together by whoever remembered to keep notes.
One tender is healthcare IT. The next is construction methodology. The next is financial modelling. No officer, and no three‑person committee, can carry deep expertise in every domain a complex submission demands, and nobody should be expected to. Without specialist depth on tap, substance gets harder to reach than presentation.
Fourteen submissions, three hundred pages each. Manual extraction, manual rationale writing, cross‑checking by hand. Three reviewers, three weeks, evenings and weekends lost to it. The work that actually needs judgement, the hard calls, gets whatever is left after the mechanical slog eats the days.
A losing bidder files a review. The committee is asked to defend every score, every rationale, every reference, often months later, from memory and scattered notes. Decisions that looked sound on the day do not always survive a tribunal. The exposure lands on the institution and the people who signed.
BidsEval.AI sits between the moment submissions close and the moment the committee signs. Everything in between becomes faster, more expert, and defensible under any scrutiny.
Upload the technical proposals, financial models, capability statements, and pre‑bid clarifications. Any RFx type, any format. Dozens of documents, hundreds of pages per bidder. Statutory and mandatory documents read first, every page indexed into a single evidence layer, nothing silently dropped.
A senior‑specialist read of every submission, against the criteria you set. Scores with citations. Financial extracts. Compliance flags. Anomalies surfaced. Side‑by‑side comparisons. Every claim traceable to a page reference.
The committee receives an expert brief, not a decision. They review, adjust, deliberate, and sign. The legal mandate and the final judgment stay with them. BidsEval.AI is the analysis, never the authority.
Real evaluations aren't one score: they're several reviewers who disagree, and a committee that has to reconcile them defensibly. BidsEval.AI runs that properly.
Each evaluator scores independently. The system surfaces where they diverge, flags the outliers, and structures the reconciliation. When a moderated score departs from the independent ones, it cannot be finalised without a recorded reason. Evaluators appear anonymised by ordinal. The deliberation is judged on substance, not seniority.
The one thing a procurement review always demands and committees rarely have: a complete, reasoned record of how the panel got from independent scores to a final decision.
PPADA 2015. World Bank Procurement Regulations for IPF borrowers. AGPO preference margins and reserved categories. Choose the framework per exercise. BidsEval.AI applies its rules, scoring guidance, and preference schemes automatically.
Donor‑funded, government, and reserved procurement, each evaluated against the regime that actually governs it, not a single hardcoded default.
Two‑envelope tenders keep financials sealed from technical scoring until qualification is decided, enforced in the workflow, not just intended. QCBS combines technical and financial into a weighted score on the split you set.
Merit‑point, lowest‑evaluated‑price, prequalification: configure the method, and the evidence trail holds under each one.
Every output is a draft. Every score has a cited document. Every document has a page reference. The audit trail is built in, not bolted on.
Section‑by‑section analysis with annotations, missing‑document flags, eligibility checks, and a short executive summary per bidder. Designed to be read alongside the original submission, not in place of it.
A criterion‑by‑criterion matrix across all bidders. Every cell carries a score, a one‑line rationale, and a citation to the source document. Filterable by criterion, weighting, or threshold.
Pricing schedules, cost breakdowns, payment terms, and total cost of ownership, extracted from PDFs and normalised onto a comparable scale. Outliers and arithmetic errors flagged.
The final evaluation report, drafted in your house style, signed by your committee, defensible at a procurement tribunal. The accompanying register tracks every score change with reason and reviewer.
Every score has a reason.
Every reason has a document.
Every output is a draft
pending your committee's sign‑off.
Every score cites a page. Every adjustment is logged with reviewer, timestamp, and reason. A document that's present but unreadable is never scored as missing; it's flagged for the committee. A retrieval failure never becomes a verdict. The audit trail is append‑only.
BidsEval.AI recommends, flags, calculates, and drafts. The committee decides. The committee signs. This is not a disclaimer. It is the architecture. Legally and commercially, accountability stays where it belongs.
No model training on your submissions. Tenant‑isolated storage. Kenya DPA 2019 compliant. Segregated by design, so the commercial positions in every bidder's submission stay yours. Full detail below.
Procurement data is among the most sensitive an institution holds: pricing, ownership, the commercial positions of every bidder. BidsEval.AI is built so that data stays yours, provably.
A 14‑day pilot on a live evaluation exercise. Your category, your criteria, your committee. We deliver a scored workbook and an evidence trail. You decide whether it would have helped.
Tell us about the exercise. We respond within one business day from Nairobi.
One of us will be in touch within one business day.