Synthetic deliverable example
See the review logic before you buy the review.
This compact example uses a fictional cleaning tender and invented draft material. It is not a client case, a procurement opinion or a promise of score. A paid review is built only from the real pack, draft and evidence that the client is authorised to supply.
Fictional brief
Northbridge Community Estates — multi-site cleaning
- Evaluation
- 60% quality · 40% price
- Draft status
- 9,200 words · client-owned working version
- Review scope
- One tender · one lot · mandatory and scored answers
- Deadline state
- Eight working days remaining
Extract 01 · compliance matrix
Requirements become visible decisions.
| Published requirement | Review finding | Evaluator risk | Priority action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mobilisation plan · 15% | Draft lists activities but gives no owner, dependency, acceptance gate or day-by-day sequence. | Evaluator cannot see how readiness will be controlled before service commencement. | Add a 30-day mobilisation table with named roles, dependencies, evidence and buyer sign-off points. |
| Quality management · 20% | Monthly audits are mentioned without the inspection standard, sample size or escalation threshold. | The claim is generic and difficult to score or verify. | Define audit frequency, accountable owner, scoring method, corrective-action clock and reporting route. |
| Business continuity · pass/fail | No direct response to the mandatory recovery-time statement. | Possible non-compliance even if the wider continuity narrative is strong. | Answer the declaration explicitly and cite the approved continuity evidence before submission. |
| Social value · 10% | Commitments are positive but not local, measured or time-bound. | Low evaluator confidence and limited basis for contract monitoring. | Replace aspirations with client-approved outputs, baselines, reporting frequency and delivery owners. |
Synthetic draft fragment
Before
“We will mobilise the contract using our experienced team and proven processes. Regular meetings will make sure everything is ready and any issues are resolved quickly.”
Risk: generic capability language, no sequence, ownership, evidence or buyer control point.
Illustrative rewrite direction
After
“Within two working days of award, the mobilisation lead opens the dependency log and confirms TUPE, access, equipment and site-induction owners. Each item carries a due date, evidence link and RAG status. The buyer receives the log twice weekly and approves the day-20 readiness gate before go-live.”
Client gate: every timing, role, process and commitment must be verified against real delivery evidence.
Extract 02 · evaluator-risk report
The correction order protects the deadline.
- 01 · CriticalResolve the unanswered pass/fail continuity declaration.
Confirm the authorised statement and evidence before improving lower-weight prose.
- 02 · HighMake mobilisation scoreable.
Add owners, dependencies, dates, outputs and buyer acceptance gates.
- 03 · HighReplace unsupported quality claims.
Connect the inspection method, escalation clock and reporting example to verified evidence.
- 04 · MediumTurn social-value aspirations into measurable commitments.
Use only targets the client can approve, deliver and report.
One live tender · one existing draft
Get the gaps, risks and rewrite order in 72 hours.
£950 fixed fee for the published standard scope. The exact intake, exclusions and delivery clock are confirmed in writing before payment.
Request the Tender Review ↗