{"slug":"procurement-comparison-assistant","name":"Procurement comparison assistant","category":"Government","customer":"Public procurement evaluation teams","problem":"Supplier proposals vary in structure and conceal missing responses.","value":"For public procurement evaluation teams, turn proposals, disclosed criteria and scoring guidance into evaluation evidence matrix. Address the recurring problem: supplier proposals vary in structure and conceal missing responses. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.","format":"Structured comparison and clarification workspace","screens":"Key screens: Comparison matrix, evidence panel, evaluator notes. Use a side-by-side matrix with the same fields for every document or option. Clicking a value reveals its original passage. Highlight missing, different and uncertain items separately. Provide a clarification queue and reviewer annotations before exporting a decision pack. In this product, the first view is comparison matrix, followed by evidence panel and evaluator notes.","functionality":"1. Map proposal sections. 2. Identify omissions. 3. Normalize comparable fields. 4. Cite supplier claims. 5. Capture evaluator judgments. 6. Preserve assessment history.","workflow":"Define comparison fields, upload source versions or offers, extract candidate values, normalize only agreed units, inspect differences, resolve questions with reviewers, and export an evidence-linked comparison. Start with proposals, disclosed criteria and scoring guidance and finish with evaluation evidence matrix.","ai":"Align document sections and extract proposed comparable fields. Deterministic checks handle units and arithmetic. Preserve original wording and label assumptions. Professional reviewers assess the meaning and significance of differences.","inputs":"Proposals, disclosed criteria and scoring guidance","deliverables":"Evaluation evidence matrix","admin":"Document versions, field definitions, source references, reviewer corrections, unresolved questions, comparison history and exportable matrices.","mvp":"Begin with public procurement evaluation teams and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: map proposal sections; identify omissions. Provide operator assistance for the third module: normalize comparable fields. Deliver evaluation evidence matrix through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.","expansion":"After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: cite supplier claims; capture evaluator judgments; preserve assessment history. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.","usp":"Evidence organization follows disclosed criteria without replacing evaluators.","defensibility":"A niche comparison schema, reviewed extraction examples and clear handling of the differences that matter to a specific buyer. For this solution, build around evidence organization follows disclosed criteria without replacing evaluators. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.","alternatives":"Spreadsheet comparisons, professional reviewers, document diff tools and manual quote or contract review. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: evidence organization follows disclosed criteria without replacing evaluators. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.","revenue":"Test USD 300-1,500 for one bounded comparison package, then USD 150-600 monthly for recurring volume with review limits. Complex expert interpretation is separately priced. Figures are hypotheses.","costs":"Document parsing, field alignment, source verification, expert interpretation, clarification rounds and changing document formats.","integrations":"Official publications, agency document stores and approved service workflows. Document repositories, procurement or contract records and spreadsheet exports. Preserve originals and avoid writing back interpretations without approval. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.","dependencies":"Document alignment, field provenance, unit normalization, missing-value handling and reviewer correction. Similar-looking documents may contain materially different terms.","pilot":"Compare a known set already reviewed by a domain expert. Check meaningful differences, false alarms and missing fields. Measure reviewer time including corrections rather than extraction speed alone. For this solution, use proposals, disclosed criteria and scoring guidance and evaluate evaluation evidence matrix. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for evidence completeness, evaluator preparation time. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.","plan30":"Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: public procurement evaluation teams. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a structured comparison of sample bids. Week 3: present it through procurement training and consulting firms and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review evidence completeness, evaluator preparation time, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.","metrics":"Evidence completeness, evaluator preparation time","channels":"Procurement training and consulting firms","leadMagnet":"A structured comparison of sample bids","message":"Procurement comparison assistant for public procurement evaluation teams. Evidence organization follows disclosed criteria without replacing evaluators. Demonstrate the claim through a structured comparison of sample bids.","retention":"Save reviewer-approved comparison fields and recurring document formats. Offer repeat comparisons and explicit updates when the source options change.","controls":"Preserve official source versions, accessibility and audit records. Confirm agency-specific procurement, records and data handling requirements during discovery. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.","crossSector":"Operations; Writers","fn":["Map proposal sections","Identify omissions","Normalize comparable fields","Cite supplier claims","Capture evaluator judgments","Preserve assessment history"],"sc":{"opp":7,"pain":7,"feas":5,"now":7},"phases":[{"name":"MVP","scope":"One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: map proposal sections; identify omissions. Manual review in the loop.","time":{"days":6,"label":"6 days"},"usd":11000},{"name":"Paid pilot","scope":"Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.","time":{"days":7,"label":"7 days"},"usd":14000},{"name":"Full product","scope":"Remaining modules: cite supplier claims; capture evaluator judgments; preserve assessment history. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.","time":{"days":13,"label":"3 weeks"},"usd":19500}],"running":[{"stage":"MVP and paid pilot","note":"about 3 customers","hosting":[50,100],"ai":[50,100],"total":[100,200]},{"stage":"Full product","note":"about 50 customers","hosting":[190,380],"ai":[350,700],"total":[540,1080]}],"total":44500,"complexity":0.84,"days":26,"shot":true,"demo":true}