03 · CBM · FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Tender Intelligence
Workflow concept · not a live applicationA proposed, evidence-led workspace to help teams triage tender packs, understand requirements, assess fit, and coordinate a human-owned bid decision.
Illustrative only. This page uses a fabricated sample tender. No procurement portal, CBM system, live document, or AI service is connected. Recommendations shown are mock data, not model output or a bid decision.
PROPOSED WORKFLOW
From tender pack to reviewed action
Each requirement should retain a page reference, evidence excerpt, confidence, owner, and review state.
- 01Capture
Register the opportunity and control the tender-pack version.
- 02Extract
Identify deadlines, eligibility, mandatory requirements, and evaluation criteria.
- 03Qualify
Compare requirements with approved service-line capabilities and evidence.
- 04Review
Route gaps and bid/no-bid recommendations to authorised staff.
SYNTHETIC SAMPLE · NOT A REAL TENDER
Requirement review
| Requirement | Evidence reference | Initial review | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24/7 incident response coverage | Section 3.2 · p. 18 | Needs validation | Confirm regional roster and SLA |
| ISO 45001-aligned safety management | Section 5.1 · p. 27 | Evidence gap | Request current certificate / scope |
| Three comparable contracts in the last five years | Schedule B · p. 41 | Candidate evidence | Validate references and client permission |
The concept can surface fit, gaps, and evidence freshness; authorised CBM staff retain bid/no-bid and submission approval.
PROTOTYPE BOUNDARY
What is—and is not—implemented here
Shown: a proposed requirement-to-evidence review pattern using fabricated content.
Not connected: GeBIZ, SESAMi, TenderBoard, Ariba, CBM records, live document storage, or generative AI.
Next build gate: agree a redacted evaluation pack, requirement labels, reviewer roles, source permissions, and security/retention boundaries.