A bid no bid decision argued from both sides, with every point cited, before anyone writes a word
Bid where you can win, and see the bad terms before anyone writes a word.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Bid/No-Bid Decision is bid no bid decision software that scores each incoming RFP on fit, win odds, risk and effort for a go/no-go decision. Eight agents read the package, score it on your own criteria, flag the terms that bite, estimate the hours against the team's calendar and argue the cited case to bid and not to bid. The VP Sales — or the capture manager under $1M — decides and signs.
How to choose AI solutions for back-office and enterprise work →
Updated
Every week more RFPs arrive than the proposal team can answer well, and somebody has to decide fast which ones to bid. Today that is a 30-minute gate meeting on a 1–5 scorecard: win odds are the capture manager's opinion, effort is the proposal manager's guess, the team calendar is not consulted, and nobody has read the liquidated damages clause in Attachment C. The loudest voice in the room decides, and the dissent is rarely written down.
The cost shows up later. Uncapped damages, a 10% performance bond and net-60 payment terms are often found by legal only after 200 hours of writing. A yes this week can sink two other bids due the same week. And months later, when the award comes in, nobody can say whether bids scored 60 win more than bids scored 40 — so the criteria never change.
Estimated hours for one mid-size RFP, across the capture, proposal and sales leads, by hand and with the solution.
Eight agents read, score and argue every RFP — an advocate and a sceptic each answer the other's strongest point; the VP Sales decides and signs.
Calderbrook Utilities issues RFP CBU-2026-114 for meter data and field services: $2.4M over a 3-year base term, against an incumbent of 7 years. It reaches Kestrel & Vane Group's Field & Network Services at 21:12 on a Tuesday. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Erin's Today screen shows four numbers — 9 RFPs this week, 3 decisions for her, the proposal team 74% booked to 20 Nov, a 47% win rate on bids in Q3 — and the three decisions ranked by clock. Beside them, the bid team reports in its own words: the intake agent read Calderbrook overnight, the sceptic recommends no bid as it stands. Erin asks why the agents disagree, and the advocate answers with both sides of the case, each point cited.
Advocate agent: “I say bid with Fenwick … The sceptic says no … Open the debate to hear both.”
The intake agent read all 64 pages, the pricing workbook, the forms and the draft agreement, then attached Addendum 1 when it arrived the next morning — meter exchanges up to 9,000 a year — and asked the effort agent to re-run. The RFP brief lists the key dates, the 12 service lines (Kestrel & Vane runs 11 today) and how the buyer will score: 45 technical, 15 experience, 40 price.
“Below 30 of 60 technical points, price is not opened.”
Against commercial risk policy CR-2 the terms agent flagged 3 of 31 terms: liquidated damages of $1,500 a day per missed read cycle with no cap, payment at net 60 and a performance bond of 10% of annual value. Every flag opens the passage it came from. It drafted a clarification question asking for a cap at 10% of annual value, due by the 28 Oct question deadline — for a person to send.
Attachment C §14.2: “The total liquidated damages under this Agreement shall not be limited.”
From 14 comparable bids, median 330 hours, the effort agent puts Calderbrook at 340 hours by section and role. It lays them on the proposal team's calendar next to Halden County and St. Aldric: week 46 has 64 hours free, and Calderbrook needs 126 there, 62 over. It proposes moving 32 hours of St. Aldric reviews to week 47, which has 106 hours free; alone, week 46 would still be 30 hours over. Anya Kowalczyk approves or not.
Effort agent: estimates only; it books hours only after a signed decision.
The scoring agent scores 61 under bid criteria BC-3.2 — the executive decision band, 50 to 64 — with fit 82, win odds 31%, risk high and 340 hours, an expected value of $134K for a $32.3K bid. On the left the advocate makes the case to bid: 11 of 12 service lines at a 99.1% read rate, an incumbent that missed its target in 5 of 8 quarters. On the right the sceptic: a 7-year incumbent, and 4 wins in 17 against incumbents of 5+ years.
The advocate answers the sceptic's 4 of 17: nine of those bids went alone with a capability gap, and with a data partner the team won 3 of 5. The sceptic answers the advocate's read-rate misses: they fell in the 2025 storm season, and in July the board extended the incumbent anyway. Neither can delete the other's point; Erin can strike one, with a reason on the record.
“The buyer knows the record and still trusts the incumbent.”
Erin asks, and both agents answer with sources. With Fenwick Grid Analytics writing line 12, meter data analytics, the score rises to 67, win odds to 44% and effort falls to 260 hours. The sceptic no longer says no on odds, but points out the damages are still uncapped and Fenwick's 20% share takes margin to 16.4%, just above the 15% floor. The score is marked as a what-if until she decides.
“What-if: with Fenwick. Not yet true.”
Erin chooses Bid with a partner, with reason codes PAR-2 (partner closes a capability gap) and STR-1 (strategic account or region), and a condition: clarify the damages cap before 28 Oct; if refused, the bid goes back to the gate. The agents recommend; only she decides.
“I read both cases. I am deciding as Erin Walsh, VP Sales, under BC-3.2.”
The plan names the owners — Anya as proposal lead, Marcus Lindqvist on capture, Fenwick's partner lead, Daniel Osei on pricing, Ruth Okonkwo on terms — and the milestones from kick-off on 15 Oct to submission on 13 Nov. Hours are held, not booked, and the CRM update to “Bid, in progress” with the reasons is drafted, written after finance signs. The clarification question waits for Marcus to send it on the portal.
Calderbrook is $2.4M, so it routes to Daniel. His sign-off shows the working: base term $2,400,000, Fenwick's share $480,000, Kestrel & Vane's $1,920,000 against $1,605,000 of cost — 16.4% margin against a 15% floor. He signs or returns it with a reason. Above $5M, the CFO would sign too.
Every source, decision and signature is on the audit trail, which nothing can edit or delete.
The same RFP, seen by five of the people who carry it — what the go/no-go looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents read, score and argue every RFP — an advocate and a sceptic each answer the other's strongest point; the VP Sales decides and signs.
Reads each RFP package the hour it arrives — the RFP, attachments, pricing workbook and addenda — and extracts the scope lines, dates, evaluation weights, submission rules and every term, each with its passage. Matches addenda to their RFP and asks the other agents to re-run.
Scores the RFP on the company's seven bid criteria, each with its evidence, and works out fit, win odds from comparable bids in the CRM and the expected value.
Finds who holds the work now and how well: public award notices, board minutes, contract extensions and protests, each with its source.
Flags terms against the commercial risk policy — damages caps, bonds, payment, IP, insurance, indemnity — and drafts the clarification question that could change the decision before the buyer's question deadline. Drafts declines from signed no-bid decisions.
Estimates hours by section and role from similar past bids, lays them on the proposal team's calendar and shows the clash with other bids in flight; proposes moves.
Builds the strongest cited case to bid, answers the sceptic's strongest point and proposes and tests bid shapes — with a partner, with a clarified clause.
Builds the strongest cited case not to bid, independently of the advocate, answers the advocate's strongest point and says what would change its mind.
Records results and debriefs, compares them with each decision's reasons, shows how bids fared by score band and proposes changes to the criteria weights with the evidence.
Decides with reason codes; finance signs the margin from $1M. The agents propose; a named person decides.
On Today, in the debate and on every detail screen, ask the agents about any RFP, score, term or the team's hours. Answers cite their sources, and where one proposes an action, nothing changes until you press the button.
Why do the agents disagree on Calderbrook?
The advocate says bid with Fenwick: we run 11 of 12 lines and the incumbent missed its target in 5 of 8 quarters. The sceptic says no: we win 4 of 17 against long incumbents and the damages are uncapped. Open the debate to hear both.
What does a partner change?
Advocate: with Fenwick writing line 12, requirement fit goes 77 → 90, competitive position 34 → 46 and capacity 55 → 75. The score is 67, win odds 44%, and effort falls to 260 hours. Sceptic: it is better, and I would no longer say no on odds. It does not touch the uncapped damages, and Fenwick's 20% share takes margin to 16.4%, just above the 15% floor.
Can we fit it without moving St. Aldric?
Not in week 46: it has 64 hours free. Alone Calderbrook needs 126 there (62 over); with Fenwick, 96 (32 over). Moving 32 hours of St. Aldric reviews to week 47 closes it with Fenwick. Anya decides.
Why raise the weight on capacity?
When capacity scored below 50 and we bid anyway, we won 1 of 7. Commercial value scored about the same on wins and losses, so it told us little. I only propose; Tomas Reyes approves a new criteria version.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
What the agents score on, who decides and how fast are settings — versioned, approved and on the audit trail. Scores already signed keep the version they used.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Bid criteria and weights | Strategic fit 20 · requirement fit 15 · competitive position 20 · relationship 10 · commercial value 15 · terms risk 10 · capacity 10 | Any weights totalling 100; saved as a new version |
| Bands | Bid at 65+ · executive decision 50–64 · no bid below 50 | Set the bid and executive thresholds; changes go to the VP Sales for approval |
| Who decides | Capture manager under $1M · VP Sales from $1M, or any score of 50–64 · the CFO signs too above $5M | Value bands and the signer after each |
| Margin floor | 15% after partner shares | Any percentage; finance signs against it |
| Terms that always flag | Uncapped damages · security above 5% · payment beyond net 45 | Also unlimited indemnity, assignment of pre-existing IP, consequential loss not excluded |
| Decide within | 3 business days of receipt | …and at least 5 days before the question deadline |
| Margin sign-off and reminders | Within 8 hours · remind after 24 | Hours, per clock |
| Who hears what | A new RFP scored · the agents disagree · a clock under 24 hours · a flagged term | On or off per rule; also an addendum that changes the score, a weekly digest |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (a 2026 RFP benchmark survey of 1,500+ teams, run by an RFP software vendor — 166 RFPs a year at 33 hours each, a 39% win rate, 75% of teams running a go/no-go process). People, companies, buyers, partners and RFPs named on this page, including Kestrel & Vane Group, are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Bid/No-Bid Decision is bid no bid decision software that scores each incoming RFP on fit, win odds, risk and effort for a go/no-go decision. Eight agents read the package, score it on your own criteria, flag the terms that bite, estimate the hours against the team's calendar and argue the cited case to bid and not to bid. The VP Sales — or the capture manager under $1M — decides and signs.
Two agents with opposite briefs build cited cases and must each answer the other's strongest point, so the case against is shown, not averaged away. The person asks the panel questions and tries bid shapes — with a partner, with a capped clause — and sees the score, win odds, effort and expected value change before deciding.
The scoring agent works them out from comparable bids in your CRM's win/loss history and shows the working and the sample size. On the sample RFP they rest on 17 comparable bids, and the agent says the honest range is 22–40% around its 31%.
Yes. The intake agent reads every page and attachment, addenda too, and the terms agent checks each term against your commercial risk policy — uncapped damages, bonds, payment terms, indemnity, IP. Where a clarification could change the decision, it drafts the question before the buyer's question deadline, for a person to send.
Yes. The agents never decide, sign, contact a buyer, accept a term or book hours before a signature. A decision needs a choice, a reason code and a signature, routes by value, and finance signs the margin from $1M. Changes to the criteria weights are proposals that only the administrator can approve.
Every decision keeps its reasons. When the result comes in, the outcomes agent compares it with them, shows how bids fared by score band and proposes weight changes with the evidence. In the sample data, bids scored 65 and above won 55%, and none of the 6 bid by exception below 50 won.
Yes. The criteria and weights, the bands, who decides at each value, the margin floor, the terms that always flag, the decision clocks and who is notified are all settings, versioned and on the audit trail. At set-up the agents map your existing 1–5 scorecard to the criteria.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your bid criteria, risk policy and past bids — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. Set-up is four steps: connect the CRM and buyer portals, import past bids with their results and timesheets, confirm the criteria and name the approvers.
Questionnaires back in days, not weeks, and every answer matches what customers were told.
1-min demoRFP Response AutomationHigher win rate, no promise you can't keep, and the bid in on time.
1-min demoDue Diligence Questionnaire (DDQ) ResponseEvery DDQ answered from approved sources, and no investor told two different stories.
1-min demoWe'll run Bid/No-Bid Decision on a few of your own recent RFPs and the bid criteria you use today.