Practice / Tenders
Answering a tender costs days. Most of that is not thinking. It is searching: the same certificates, the same references, the same sentences, this time in a different form.
The starting point
A suitable design
These components describe one possible individual scope. Scope and rules are agreed with your business.
Portals are connected through available, approved interfaces or exports, emails through the mailbox meant for them, and a word from someone is recorded deliberately. Imports that fail or are not possible stay visible instead of faking completeness.
Every certificate with its expiry date. What runs out says so before it is needed, not in the moment it is missing.
Answers that have already been written and checked, with the case they came from beside them. They are carried over deliberately, not by accident.
From the submission date: what has to be ready when, and who supplies it. Not one date but a chain with lead time.
Submission in 16 days. Of eleven certificates required, eight are on file and valid.
Two expire before the submission date and one is missing entirely. Nothing has been added.
07 · To watch
What happens here is not magic. It is a filing system that knows how long something is valid. Start the run and look at the last three lines.
Submission in 16 days
An illustration. Which certificates are required is set out in the tender itself; the figures and deadlines here are invented.
Gathering eight certificates saves time. Knowing two weeks in advance that two expire and one is missing decides whether you can submit at all. One is convenience, the other is the job.
It would be easy to produce something plausible for the last line. In a tender an invented declaration is not an inaccuracy but a ground for exclusion, and in the worst case more than that. What is not there stays visibly empty.
The countercheck
The temptation is to have the written answers drafted for you. A text that reads well and describes the work wrongly costs more in a tender than not taking part, and in the worst case it binds you. So the agent only assembles what you have already written and checked, and marks every passage it wrote itself.
A useful first trial includes this failure case explicitly. Fast processing alone is not success if checking and correction create more work.
The connection to the next task
Your first stage
For Tenders, we choose a bounded first outcome with your team. Existing specialist systems can stay where they fulfil necessary requirements. We compare time relief, payments that can end and the cost of the new way of working.
The workshop gives you priorities and a roadmap. You can continue internally or with support from Markus Kirchmair. The choice of model and agent follows the task, with data and rules retained outside an individual chat.
Explore the workshop →Ready for the next change
The first view should show the next relevant decision. Reasoning and sources remain accessible. We leave out unnecessary features and make actual progress visible.
When a rule changes, agents can help investigate the impact, prepare the adjustment and update tests and documentation. A qualified person assesses the result and its adoption.
Try a change →Your first step
Less unnecessary software. More room for your work. Let’s find the useful first step.