Bid Teardown
The proposal claims 94% accuracy. Compared to what baseline, on what data?
An independent engineering and financial forensic review of vendor proposals for AI and major platform projects. We expose hidden assumptions and translate theoretical performance claims into practical, measurable tests.
-
01
Framing the question as an executive decision Coupled with the actual constraints you operate within, not theoretical assumptions.
-
02
Options and their financial impact Detailing what each path costs, its risks, and the internal stakeholder who must own it.
-
03
One named recommendation An advisory report that ends with “it depends” is an incomplete engagement.
-
PROCEED
Owner and timeline An executive decision with a defined owner and schedule.
-
DEFER
Calculated deferral The exact conditions that must be met before the investment becomes viable.
Enterprises receive technical proposals filled with promises and jargon from vendors who hold an informational advantage regarding the solution they sell. This asymmetry is what eventually costs organisations massive budget overruns.
We bridge this knowledge gap in your favour. Within 10 working days, we provide an independent report detailing the fair cost of the project, unstated assumptions, and a practical test of how the vendor’s claims hold up against your actual data, concluding with a definitive executive recommendation.
We do not resell software or licenses, nor do we take commissions from any vendor. Our assessment is 100% neutral and independent.
What is included in the review report?
Counter-Estimate Cost Model (Cost Range)
An independent engineering calculation of the project’s true cost scope, modeled as a probability curve rather than a single number, identifying the main drivers of budget inflation.
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) at Years 1, 3, and 5
Precise calculation of per-transaction costs, querying, token consumption, and licensing to prevent surprises once year one concludes.
Accuracy Claims Translated into Testable Hypotheses
Reframing marketing accuracy numbers into clear statistical benchmarks: required sample sizes, confidence intervals, and accuracy rates on your actual documentation.
Assumption & Risk Register with Accountabilities
Documentation of all assumptions the vendor’s price relies upon, identifying which party bears the cost of remediation if an assumption fails.
Audit of RFP Weights and Criteria
Reviewing technical and financial evaluation mechanisms to ensure competition is driven toward true value, avoiding criteria skewed toward specific vendors.
Regulatory Compliance & Governance Matrix
Identifying regulatory gaps related to NCA Essential Cybersecurity Controls, PDPL, and SDAIA regulations, with a statement of the cost to remediate them.
Local Content Requirement Assessment
Verifying the proposal’s alignment with local content preference mechanisms and LCGPA guidelines.
Executive Decision Document (One-Pager)
An executive summary recommending to Proceed, Renegotiate specific terms, or Halt, complete with the financial impact of each option.
Who is this service designed for?
- Executives authorized to approve budgets
- Those who bear the responsibility of signing off on budgets or defending them before boards and audit committees.
- Comparing disparate technical proposals
- When facing proposals with vastly different architectures and assumptions that cannot be fairly compared without independent engineering scrutiny.
- Time-sensitive tech decisions
- Prior to annual budget approvals or the closing of major tenders, to prevent financial and operational stalling.
Our Commitment to Integrity and Neutrality
- We will not flatter or echo what a client wishes to hear if the technical reality differs. If a vendor’s proposal is balanced and sound, we will confirm it in writing, providing you with a certified document of assurance.
- We will not bid to execute the project we just reviewed. Reviewing proposals with the intent to capture the implementation work destroys neutrality and turns advisory into a sales tactic.
- We rely on the strength of our methodology and engineering verifiability. You may review our assessment templates and accuracy tests prior to engagement.
Fee Structure
Fixed advisory fees tied to the value of the decision and financial impact, agreed upfront and invoiced once.
| Contract Value Under Review | Fee Percentage | Indicative Fee | Price Reduction Required to Break Even |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAR 3m | 2.0% | SAR 60,000 | 2.00% |
| SAR 8m | 1.5% | SAR 120,000 | 1.50% |
| SAR 20m | 1.0% | SAR 200,000 | 1.00% |
| SAR 50m | 0.8% | SAR 400,000 | 0.80% |
The review pays for itself if it helps reduce the vendor price by the marginal percentage shown in the last column, avoids the purchase of unnecessary licenses, or halts a failing workstream. The cost models and analysis registers remain yours to reuse in future tenders.
Send the proposal for technical review.
Share the contract value and decision timeline. We will respond with an audit plan and a fixed fee within two working days.