BIDTEK’s costing engine turns requirements into a defensible price. Provide minimal inputs or upload your costing—AI prompts for gaps to deliver a clear, no-surprises offer.
READ MORELoading
Profile
Please Wait
In government tendering, time disappears quickly. The difference between “nearly there” and “awardable” is usually structure and evidence, not wordplay. BIDTEK is built on that principle. Instead of handing you a blank page and a checklist, the platform prepares a complete, criterion-aligned draft for each tender you choose to pursue. Your role is to review, answer a handful of targeted prompts, and approve.
When you select a tender in the portal, BIDTEK draws on three sources at once: the tender pack already ingested, your verified business profile, and your bid library of projects, CVs, policies and accreditations. It assembles a full response mapped to the buyer’s evaluation criteria. Sections aren’t generic—they mirror the structure evaluators expect to see: methodology and delivery approach, capability, key personnel, relevant experience, quality and safety, and where required, social or local economic outcomes. From the first glance, the document reads like something designed to be marked, not merely read.
The platform drafts a practical delivery narrative that reflects milestones, acceptance criteria and service levels drawn directly from the documents. It explains what happens first, what happens next, and how performance will be measured—using the buyer’s own terminology. Where assumptions or dependencies matter, BIDTEK marks them visibly so a reviewer can confirm or edit in seconds. The result is a method that feels lived-in and measurable, not theoretical.
Rather than a pile of résumés, BIDTEK creates a clean picture of who is doing what: a lead, a delivery core, and any specialists or regional resources. Role descriptions, qualifications and clearances are inserted from maintained staff profiles. If something is missing or out of date—such as an insurance certificate—the draft contains a flagged placeholder and a prompt to update, keeping the section accurate without manual chase-ups.
Case studies are selected for fit, not just recency. The system proposes examples aligned to scope, region and category, then populates them with verified facts: client (where permissible), timeframe, objectives, approach, KPIs and outcomes. Reviewers can swap a case with one click or add nuance in a short note; the structure and metrics are already there. What the evaluator sees is evidence that looks like the work they’re buying.
Because the first draft is complete, reviewers don’t trawl through documents. They respond to targeted prompts where human judgement adds value—confirming a weekend works window, naming a local subcontractor, adding a sentence on stakeholder engagement specific to a council. Each prompt is anchored to a clause or criterion; once addressed, the change flows through the draft automatically.
BIDTEK keeps a live link between the narrative and the obligations it covers. Mandatory items are tracked back to their source clauses; gaps remain highlighted until resolved. If an addendum arrives, the platform refreshes affected passages and asks reviewers to re-confirm only what changed. The document stays coherent, current and auditable without manual reconciliation.
Short paragraphs, clear headings and consistent terminology are encouraged by the editor. The platform nudges outcomes language—“so that traffic disruption is minimised”—and trims duplication, producing a response that is easier for evaluators to read and therefore easier to score. What you submit looks considered because it was assembled with scoring in mind from the outset.
Edits are tracked, roles are clear, and the “ready for approval” state isn’t shown until mandatory items, attachments and signatures are in place. When you approve, the response pack is generated in the required formats and archived with a full audit trail of who changed what, when, and against which clause.
THE NET EFFECT
BIDTEK writes the response; your team adds judgement. You spend time where it counts—confirming nuance, strengthening proof and aligning to client context—while the platform handles structure, evidence and compliance. The outcome is a submission that feels composed, confident and complete.