Tender workflow: an illustrative comparison
This fictional example follows a tender workflow from scope extraction through draft assumptions and exclusions, clarifications and a first-pass bid risk register. A human estimator could review the drafts before use.
- Client
- Hartwell M&E Group
- Workflow
- Bidroom in a Box™
- Example manual comparison
- 11h 30m
- AI-assisted
- 47 min · with review
- Prepared by
- BuiltAI Intelligence Ltd
- Status
- 93% illustrative difference
Illustrative worked example: fictional project and parties; figures, names and dates are fictional scenario details.
How the example is structured
This fictional example follows a tender workflow from scope extraction through draft assumptions and exclusions, clarifications and a first-pass bid risk register. A human estimator could review the drafts before use.
A human estimator could review the drafts before use.
Illustrative timing comparison
In this scenario, 11h 30m is compared with 47 minutes including review; the rounded arithmetic difference is 93%. These values illustrate a timing comparison, not a measured time study.
Structured drafting could reduce repetitive reading and structuring while retaining human judgement. This is a possible workflow benefit, not a measured capacity or quality gain.
Example controls to define before live use
The example lists decisions to agree before a live engagement:
| Example control | Possible approach |
|---|---|
| Data handling | Agree the processing environment, model/data terms and retention/deletion rules for the engagement. |
| Human review | Assign an estimator to check drafts before use. |
| Draft labelling | Mark outputs as drafts until reviewed. |
| Source traceability | Record the source references needed to check each item. |
| Submission | Decide separately whether a reviewed output is suitable to submit. |