RFP quality review
AI-powered review of your RFP documents for quality, clarity, and completeness before publishing.
Before publishing your RFP and inviting vendors to bid, you can have the AI review it for quality issues. Think of it as a colleague reading your requirements and pointing out problems before they become expensive to fix.
What it checks
The AI reads your RFP documents and evaluates them across eight categories:
| Category | What it looks for |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Ambiguous language, vague requirements, undefined terms |
| Completeness | Missing sections, gaps in requirements, undefined processes |
| Consistency | Contradictions between sections, conflicting requirements |
| Fairness | Requirements that unfairly favor or exclude specific vendors |
| Criteria quality | Vague evaluation criteria, missing scoring methodology |
| Timeline | Unrealistic deadlines, missing dates, scheduling conflicts |
| Legal | Missing legal clauses, regulatory compliance gaps |
| Budget | Unclear pricing requirements, missing cost structures |
These categories are how the AI labels each finding, and it can also use others, such as Contract terms. The results page doesn't summarize or filter findings by category. It counts them by severity (Critical, Major, Minor, Strength), and the findings table shows each finding's category in its own column.
Choosing the legal jurisdiction
The Legal category is checked against actual procurement-law rulebooks, and you control which ones. When you set up a procurement, the Legal jurisdiction field offers these choices:
| Jurisdiction | What the quality check applies |
|---|---|
| Auto-detect (AI) | The AI infers the most likely jurisdiction from your documents. The default. |
| EU | The harmonized EU procurement directive only — not any national law. |
| EU + Latvia | The EU directive plus Latvian national procurement law. |
| EU + Estonia | The EU directive plus Estonian national procurement law. |
| EU + Lithuania | The EU directive plus Lithuanian national procurement law. |
| EU + Poland | The EU directive plus Polish national procurement law. |
| EU + Germany | The EU directive plus German national procurement law (GWB and VgV). |
Pick the jurisdiction that matches where the procurement runs so the Legal findings cite the rules that actually apply to you. Auto-detect also recognizes other EU/EEA countries and applies the EU directive when there is no dedicated national rulebook yet. You can change the jurisdiction any time from the procurement form.
Before you start
Quick checklist:
- Your RFP documents are uploaded under Tender documents → Documents
- You have enough credits (check your balance in the top bar)
You don't need bids uploaded — this reviews the RFP itself, not vendor proposals.
Running a quality review
Start the review
Open Tender documents in the workspace sidebar and choose the Quality check tab (Quality on narrower screens). If your RFP documents are ready, you'll see a Run quality check button. Click it and the review starts immediately.
You can also choose Run quality check in the ⋮ menu on the Overview.
Watch the progress
The AI reads through your RFP documents and records findings as it goes. You'll see a two-panel layout:
- Left panel — findings appear progressively as the AI discovers them
- Right panel — the agent activity feed shows what the agent is doing in real time (reading sections, evaluating categories, recording issues)
Unlike bid analysis, there's no verification phase. The review goes straight from reading to findings.
Review the findings
Each finding includes:
- Severity level — how serious the issue is
- Blocks publishing — shown when you must fix the issue before you publish, because the tender cannot work as written (for example two different submission deadlines, or a scored criterion with no scoring method)
- Category — which of the eight areas it relates to
- Description — what the problem is
- Evidence — the specific text from your RFP that triggered the finding
When some findings block publishing, a Fix before publishing list appears above the findings table. It names each of them with the recommended fix; click a name to jump to its row. The table lists these findings first.
Open a finding to mark it Mark as fixed once you have changed your documents, or Not useful if it does not apply. Fixed findings stay in the table, marked as fixed, and leave the Fix before publishing list, which shows how many blockers you have fixed. Findings marked not useful move to a folded list under the table, where Reopen brings them back. Marking findings does not change the recommendation; run the check again to get a new one.
Read the executive summary
When the review finishes, you get an executive summary and an overall recommendation. The summary opens with what blocks publishing, then covers the rest worth fixing.
Understanding severity levels
Findings come in four severity levels:
| Severity | What it means |
|---|---|
| Critical | A serious issue that could undermine the entire procurement. Fix before publishing. |
| Major | A significant problem that could cause confusion or unfair outcomes. Should be addressed. |
| Minor | A small issue worth fixing but unlikely to cause major problems. |
| Strength | Something your RFP does notably well that is worth keeping when you revise it. The review records strengths only when they stand out, so many reviews have none. |
Understanding the recommendation
The recommendation follows from the findings. The review card also tells you how many findings block publishing.
| Recommendation | When you get it |
|---|---|
| Ready to Publish | The review found no issues. |
| Minor Improvements Needed | The review found issues, but none of them blocks publishing. |
| Significant Revision Needed | At least one finding blocks publishing. Fix those first. |
Reviews run before this rule existed may still show Not Ready for Publication.
Peer Insights
Alongside the quality findings, the review can show Peer Insights — a comparison of your RFP against similar tenders that other organizations have already published. It's a way to learn from real precedent: how peers who bought comparable things set up their evaluation, what qualification requirements they used, and which sections they included.
Open the Peer Insights tab in the review to see them. Insights are grouped by the source tender, and each one shows:
- The similar tender it's drawn from, with a link to the original and how closely it matches yours
- The area being compared — evaluation method and criteria, requirements and qualifications, or document structure
- A plain comparison of what the peer did versus what you're doing, with a suggestion
- An applicability hint — likely, maybe, or unlikely — our best guess at whether the peer's approach is worth adopting
Peer Insights are advisory. They never change your quality recommendation and don't count as findings — they're suggestions you can weigh and apply at your discretion. Dismiss any insight you don't find useful and it won't come back.
If there aren't yet enough similar tenders to compare against, the tab shows an honest empty state instead of low-confidence guesses. Coverage is strongest for Latvian tenders today and improves as more published tenders are analyzed.
Exporting findings to Excel
Click the download button in the review header to export all findings as an Excel spreadsheet. The export includes the overall recommendation, how many findings block publishing, the executive summary, and a severity-coded findings table with descriptions, recommendations, evidence, a Blocks publishing column and a State column (open, fixed or not useful). Findings that block publishing come first. Share the spreadsheet with stakeholders or archive it for your records.
Regenerating a review
If you've updated your RFP documents based on the findings and want a fresh review, click Regenerate on the Quality Check page. The new review replaces the previous one. Each run costs credits.
Credit cost
An RFP quality review costs credits, similar to running an analysis. The cost depends on the size of your RFP documents. A typical review costs 1–3 credits — generally less than a full bid analysis since it's only reviewing one set of documents.
See pricing for more detail.
Running a quality review before publishing can save you time and money. Catching an ambiguous requirement now is much cheaper than dealing with vendor clarification requests or bid protests later.
When to use it
- Before publishing your RFP to catch issues early
- After major revisions to make sure edits didn't introduce new problems
- For complex procurements where multiple people contributed sections and consistency might be an issue
This is not a substitute for legal review — it's a quick AI-powered quality check that supplements your own review process.