Worked demonstration
Sample bid assurance review
This example shows how Article6 reviews a substantially complete tender before submission.
The fictional bidder has a credible response and an experienced internal team. The main risk is not poor writing. It is that important commitments are not consistently evidenced across the submission.
All buyer, bidder, response, evidence and finding material on this page is fictional and provided only to demonstrate the review methodology.
What we found
- P1 Mobilisation timing is not fully evidenced.
- P1 The Mobilisation Manager commitment conflicts across documents.
- P2 Relevant experience is claimed but not supported by a measurable outcome.
- P2 Risk controls are described but ownership is unclear.
The submission is credible, but these issues could make it harder for the evaluator to award stronger marks with confidence.
Example: the six-week mobilisation commitment
What the buyer asked for
Provide a mobilisation plan covering governance, staffing, transition activities, milestones, dependencies, risk controls and readiness for service commencement.
What the bidder said
“Our mobilisation team will begin immediately following contract award. We have extensive experience transitioning comparable services and will use our proven mobilisation methodology. A dedicated mobilisation manager will coordinate workstreams, weekly governance meetings and readiness checks. We expect mobilisation to be completed within six weeks.”
What Article6 noticed
The response sounds credible, but the six-week commitment is asserted rather than demonstrated.
- No comparable mobilisation is identified.
- No measurable previous outcome is given.
- The six-week period is not mapped to clear milestones.
- The timing is not explicitly reconciled with the buyer's required commencement date.
Why this matters
The evaluator may believe the bidder understands mobilisation but still have insufficient evidence to award stronger marks for credibility and deliverability.
What we would ask the team to do
- Add one relevant comparable mobilisation example.
- Include the measurable delivery outcome.
- Show the main milestones and dependencies behind the six-week plan.
- Reconcile the same dates and commitments across the supporting documents.
What resolved looks like
The finding is resolved when the evaluator can see why the six-week commitment is credible without having to infer the link between the claim, the evidence and the buyer's required date.
One strong answer can still be undermined elsewhere
Tender evaluation happens across the whole submission. A commitment can look credible in the main response and still conflict with a schedule or appendix.
| Commitment | Main response | Implementation plan | Resource schedule | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobilisation duration | 6 weeks | 42 days | – | Consistent |
| Mobilisation Manager | Full-time | Named lead | 0.5 FTE | Conflict |
| Governance meetings | Weekly | Weekly | – | Consistent |
| Go-live date | 1 Nov | 1 Nov | 8 Nov | Conflict |
Neither conflict is dramatic on its own. Together, they make the evaluator less certain about which commitment represents the actual delivery plan.
This is why Article6 reviews the full submission rather than individual answers in isolation.
The bidder should not require the evaluator to decide which of two conflicting commitments is the real one.
What we would prioritise before submission
Must do
- Resolve the Mobilisation Manager contradiction.
- Reconcile the go-live dates.
- Support the six-week mobilisation commitment with evidence.
- Verify mandatory submission requirements.
Do if time allows
- Quantify the relevant previous delivery outcome.
- Make ownership of risk controls explicit.
- Improve signposting to supporting evidence.
Do not spend time on
- Stylistic rewriting of already compliant sections.
- Terminology changes made only for tone.
- Polishing low-impact narrative while P1 findings remain unresolved.
The purpose of the review is not to create more work. It is to identify the work that matters most before the deadline.
How Article6 gets there
Behind the simple findings is a consistent assurance process.
- 01Requirement extraction
- 02Evaluation mapping
- 03Coverage
- 04Evidence
- 05Compliance
- 06Consistency
- 07Scoring leakage
- 08Prioritised remediation