See the actual workspace.
The view uses example data. Enlarge the image to inspect labels and controls.
Record individual requirements
Open Requirements. Compare each retained item with its exact source. Add internal review points in a way that keeps them distinct from original requirements.
Separate mandatory requirements and scoring
A mandatory condition and a quality criterion have different consequences. Do not assume standard weights. Read the procedure’s minimum requirements, evaluation matrix and instructions.
Link supporting evidence
Link existing evidence and inspect the intended file version. Check content, validity and usage rights. An evidence title alone does not prove that the requirement is met.
Turn gaps into next actions
Mark uncertainty as open or a gap. Assign a person and date for clarification, partner evidence or a permitted bidder question. General fit does not cancel an unresolved mandatory condition.
Record capacity and the decision
Switch to “Bid room”. Compare effort, delivery capacity and commercial assumptions; record the decision under “Bid / No Bid” and its reasons in “Decision notes”. Review again when amendments or answers arrive.
Make the method concrete.
The example learning-platform project matches the company’s services, but one required reference remains uncertain. The project lead assigns a specific review instead of approving solely on sector fit.
Avoid this common pitfall.
Hiding unresolved mandatory conditions inside an overall score. Keep exclusion questions, quality criteria and commercial assumptions distinct.
Common questions, clearly answered.
Is this an automatic eligibility decision?
No. The view organises your review. You still need to assess the actual documents and make the decision.
Can I participate with a gap?
That depends on the requirement and procedure. Clarify it using the documents and appropriate professional support where needed.