For your own business, or as a service you charge other businesses like yours for.
Nobody runs this lab yet. Take it, give it your hours and your prices, and it is yours.
Criteria, sub-criteria and their weightings, taken from the consultation rules as written.
What the pack demands, what you already hold, what has expired and what takes a week to obtain.
Google SheetsOne paragraph per sub-criterion, in the grid's order, filled with your real references.
The ambiguity in the pack turned into a question, to file before the deadline in the rules.
A technical bid rarely loses on substance. It loses because it answers in its own order while the buyer scores in theirs. The scoring grid is published in the consultation rules, weightings included, and it is the only plan that counts: any sub-criterion without its own paragraph is a point that cannot be awarded, even when the company does the work well. On top of that comes the paperwork machine, the declaration forms and the single procurement document, which gets bids rejected before the technical section is even read. Three to five days per bid is the going rate for a small firm with no dedicated team. A lab reads the pack, produces the plan the grid imposes and the draft that follows it.
Worth more in month six than in week one.
The collections belong to the lab, not to any single magik. Every magik reads them and every run adds to them, which is why this lab is worth more in month six than in week one.
They all start empty. The first run writes the first row.
It wears your name, not ours.
The same lab, under your name, your colours and your logo. Your customers never see ours.
AskMOJOOn the Pro plan, and not needed to take a lab. A fully bespoke theme exists as an upgrade, hand built rather than self-serve.
Web searchGoogle SheetsAnd whatever you already use: any tool available through an API or an MCP server, connected with your own account.
A tool built for exactly your job, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This is for the jobs nothing covers, or the ones spread across three tools today.
What they will spot is a generic bid, and they read those all day. That is why this lab starts from YOUR pack rather than a template: this tender's grid, your real references, your real resources. The draft is a plan filled with what you give it, not interchangeable prose.
The content, yes, largely. The plan, almost never: two buyers do not weight the same sub-criteria, and a recycled bid gives itself away by dwelling on a criterion worth five points. The useful work is not rewriting, it is recutting.
It is where you fall without knowing why, because a bid rejected for a missing document does not come with a detailed debrief. The list comes out first in this lab, before the bid itself, for exactly that reason.
Yes, on the platform, up to the deadline set in the rules, and the answer goes to every bidder. It is the most underused move by small firms: an ambiguity cleared in writing beats a guess, and the question itself shows you read the pack.
No, and on a high-stakes tender you want both. What it replaces is the evening spent copying a plan out of the consultation rules, which is the part of the job nobody ever wanted to bill for.
A tool built for exactly small companies bidding for public contracts with no bid team, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This lab is for the jobs no tool covers, or the ones spread across three tools today, and it runs under your name.
Every audience is still open.
Nobody has taken a square on this idea yet. You declare your audience when you take the lab (“roofers in Brittany”, “plumbers around Paris”), and two people can start from the same idea on two different audiences without getting in each other’s way.
And it wears your name, not ours.
The bundle describes a lab that does not exist yet : the jobs it would do, and an example of each output.
Open Knowledge Format : plain markdown, re-importable into any agent. No account, no lock-in.
A messy first call becomes one page the client reads, corrects and signs. The scope stops moving.
A diagnostic you can charge for: where AI would pay off in this company, what it would cost, and what to do first.
Web searchGoogle Sheets
GmailStill comparing tools? Best AI for entrepreneurs.
| Criterion | Weight | Sub-criterion | Target length |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical value | 50 | Staff assigned | 1 page |
| Technical value | 50 | Delivery methodology | 2 pages |
| Environmental performance | 20 | Site waste management | 1 page |
| Deadlines | 10 | Schedule and milestones | 0.5 page |
Environmental performance carries twenty points and fits on one page. It is the criterion recycled bids dispatch in two lines, and it is where the gap opens with the competitor who read it.
| Item | State | Lead time |
|---|---|---|
| Application letter | To produce | Immediate |
| Candidate declaration | To produce | Immediate |
| Social contributions certificate | Expired since June | 48 h online |
| Ten-year liability insurance certificate | Not in the file | One week, ask the insurer |
One row sets the calendar: the insurance certificate takes a week, and submission is in nine days. It gets requested today, before a single line of the bid is written.
Technical bid - extract, Environmental performance criterion (20 points)
Site waste management
Across the three most comparable recent road jobs, the split was as follows: 78 percent of asphalt taken to a recycling centre 14 kilometres away, 14 percent of soil reused on site, 8 percent non-recoverable waste. The corresponding waste tickets are attached in appendix 3.
On this contract, the chosen recycling centre is 9 kilometres from the site, which brings the transport line below that of the three references cited.
What we are not promising
We are not committing to a soil reuse rate before the analysis provided for in the specification. The site contains an old fill whose nature is not documented in the consultation pack. We would rather announce a range of 10 to 30 percent and hold it than a single figure that would not survive the first borehole.
Monitoring
A monthly tonnage tracking table, by stream and by destination, handed to the supervising engineer with the works statement.
This section runs to one page, as the grid expects. The figures come from your last three jobs, not from a template.
Hello, Regarding tender 2026-VOI-07, one clarification would help us before submission. Clause 4.3 of the specification calls for on-site reuse of excavated soil. The pack contains no analysis of the existing fill identified on the as-built plan in appendix 2. Our question: is an analysis planned by the contracting authority before works start, or is the bidder expected to include one in the offer? The two assumptions do not lead to the same reuse commitment, and we would rather price on a basis common to every bidder. We have no other request, and we will submit within the deadline whatever the answer. Kind regards