Who it's for
Firms that should be bidding and are not, because the process is opaque and the paperwork eats a weekend.
The partner
- Know if you are eligible before spending money to find out
- One brief advertised seven times becomes one job, not seven
- No writer at RM 1,000–5,000 a proposal
- Bid the ones you can win, skip the rest with a reason
The analyst
- Stop retyping CVs into every submission
- Stop hunting for the project list
- Every CV re-ordered for the brief in front of you
- Edit in Word, not in a web form
The firm we are built for
<10
professional staff
2–6
bids a year
MOF
registered, one or two field codes
0
full-time bid staff
Engineering, planning, environmental and economic consultancies. They hold the registrations. They have the track record. What they lack is anyone whose job is paperwork — so the bid is written by whoever is least busy, or not at all.
Why the big tools do not fit
| Built for | Them | Us |
|---|---|---|
| Document type | Questionnaires — answer these 200 questions | Standard form sets scored against a points rubric |
| What it stores | A library of prose answers from past bids | Records: people, projects, registrations |
| Cold start | Needs ~200 past bids before it earns its keep | Needs the CVs you already have |
| The user | A proposal manager who knows the craft | A partner who does not, and should not have to |
| Cadence | Weekly bids, with a team | Twice a year, alone |
A CV is not an answer. It is a set of records to re-rank against each brief — which is exactly what the 60–80% relevance weighting rewards, and exactly what a library of past prose cannot do.
What it is worth
A tool at RM 400 against a
RM 1.4m contract is 0.03% of the prize.
The comparison that matters is the bid writer, not the software.