Requirements keep their evidence
Make unsupported commitments and missing sources visible before the proposal is polished.
For consultancy and professional services firm owners in Australia
AI automation for professional services firmsKeep your proposal connected to what you can deliver.
Inspect twelve requirements, their evidence and a 72-hour delivery option. Add a mandatory work package to see the capacity shortfall and renewed decision.
Built around your working day
Your delivery team inherits every promise.
An RFP becomes expensive when requirements, supporting evidence and capacity live in different documents. We connect the response matrix to work packages and team commitments so your people can review a credible proposal and see the impact of an addendum.
Your current tools matter. your CRM, document library, project system and capacity records are useful starting points for scoping. We check the actual records, access and supported actions in your account before promising a connection.
What changes for you
The price follows a deliverable plan
Connect work-package estimates to current capacity and show the assumptions behind timing options.
Addenda reach delivery
Return changed requirements to the same review that governs the proposal and delivery baseline.
Example system · Simulated business data
Every promise has evidence behind it.
Inspect twelve requirements, their evidence and a 72-hour delivery option. Add a mandatory work package to see the capacity shortfall and renewed decision.
Ten requirements have fictional supporting evidence and two remain explicitly excluded.
PS-18 / v1 · example reviewThe complete architecture
Selected stage Conditional path Held or changed
Blue connections show the scenario path. Stage selection changes explanation only. Dashed paths need a new decision.
01 / Source extraction
Make each requirement addressable
Assign a requirement ID and retain its RFP source. Separate a mandatory item from an assumption and keep addenda in the version chain. An example response owner excludes two unsupported requirements from the commitment. The 72-hour option fits the recorded capacity.
Prepared with an example human decision
Requirement register / simulated
8 hheadroom against 80 available hours
PS-18-v1 · proposal and delivery baseline
| Source or item | Recorded value | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements | 10 supported / 2 excluded | Exclusions stay visible |
| WP-A / WP-B / WP-C | 24 + 32 + 16 h | 72 h total |
| CP-12 | 80 h available | 8 h headroom |
| Proposal baseline | PS-18-v1 | Example owner decision |
An example response owner excludes two unsupported requirements from the commitment. The 72-hour option fits the recorded capacity.
- Prepare the requirement-to-source matrix with explicit exclusions.
- Attach work-package dependencies and 72-hour capacity option.
- Save the reviewed proposal and delivery baseline as the same version.
Inspecting requirements · scenario output stays tied to its recorded decision
Inspect shared state, version history and event trace
RFP and addendum
v1 has twelve requirements and source references.
Fictional capability library
Ten requirements have example evidence. Two are excluded by the example owner.
Work package estimates
24 + 32 + 16 = 72 hours. These are illustrative internal estimates.
Team commitments
80 available hours in the example window.
The example does not establish procurement compliance, validate professional competence or guarantee a bid outcome. Fictional capability evidence is not a claim about SAA credentials.
Read the complete system walkthrough
01 / Source extraction
Make each requirement addressable
Assign a requirement ID and retain its RFP source. Separate a mandatory item from an assumption and keep addenda in the version chain.
What you receive Requirement register.
02 / Parallel evidence
Find evidence and expose gaps
Retrieve only approved, attributable evidence. Unsupported requirements remain unsupported instead of being filled with generated credentials or vague capability claims.
What you receive Coverage and exclusion matrix.
03 / Explicit calculations
Connect scope to real capacity
Map work packages and dependencies against current commitments. Add the estimated hours under visible rules and separate available capacity from hoped-for capacity.
What you receive Delivery and capacity options.
04 / Response owner
Review the promise as a whole
The response owner checks exclusions, evidence, scope and timing together. The proposal explanation must be grounded in this matrix, not independent persuasive text.
What you receive Proposal decision packet.
05 / Change control
Keep delivery on the same version
Save the proposal and delivery baseline together. A mandatory addendum returns affected commitments to review while preserving unaffected evidence and earlier decisions.
What you receive Versioned proposal and baseline.
The example does not establish procurement compliance, validate professional competence or guarantee a bid outcome. Fictional capability evidence is not a claim about SAA credentials.
The decision stays with your team
Useful evidence. Clear responsibility.
The example does not establish procurement compliance, validate professional competence or guarantee a bid outcome. Fictional capability evidence is not a claim about SAA credentials.
Clear scope, deliverables and a process for changes help parties understand the work. The example coordinates evidence and versions, leaving contractual decisions to people. Australian Government contract guidance ↗
Primary source checked . This original example illustrates a design, not a delivered client result.
What it costs
Scope the whole handover.
Requirement complexity, evidence-library quality, capacity sources, costing rules and approval roles shape the build. Begin with an attributable requirements matrix before generating persuasive proposal text.
We map the current process, agree the review points and put the scope, fixed fee and payback estimate in writing. Software and usage costs are considered separately. Your own baseline determines the business case.
Automation builds
From $3,500 AUDOne process, rebuilt to run without you. Monitoring and documentation included.
Typical projects
$3,500 to $12,000 AUDSeveral connected processes across two or more systems, where the data needs cleaning first.
Complex AI agent systems
$12,000 to $25,000 AUDAgents that read unstructured information, decide and write back, with human review and a full audit trail.
Ongoing care plans
$750 to $2,500 AUD per monthPriced on how much you run and what your business loses the day one of them stops.
When something breaks
Know what stopped and what is still safe to continue.
A missing addendum can leave a polished proposal out of date. We monitor expected source changes, empty evidence retrieval and failed baseline updates, keeping unsupported commitments visible rather than generating a substitute claim.
We design checks for a run that fails, a run that returns nothing and a run that never starts. The care scope names the person who receives an alert, the information they need and how a held record returns to review.
You own the workflows and accounts. Handover includes the record identifiers, review rules and recovery instructions. No lock-in is required to keep your work.
See ongoing supportBefore you decide
Your questions, answered
Can it write an entire RFP response?
It can prepare an explanation grounded in an approved evidence matrix. A person still checks requirements, exclusions, claims and contractual commitments. An attractive response is not proof of procurement compliance.
What happens to unsupported requirements?
They stay explicitly unsupported or excluded by the responsible person. The system should not invent a credential, client example or capability to make the matrix look complete.
Can it calculate team capacity?
It can apply agreed arithmetic to current commitments and work-package estimates. The example shows 72 hours against 80, then 88 after an addendum. Those are fictional planning inputs, not a utilisation benchmark.
What if an addendum arrives after approval?
Identify affected sections and invalidate their approval. Retain the earlier baseline, recalculate the impacted option and ask for a new decision before changing the commitment.
Which software do we need?
We begin with your CRM, document library, project system and capacity records. We verify access and supported operations rather than forcing a tool change before understanding the process.
Will the system guarantee a stronger bid?
No. It makes evidence, assumptions and capacity easier to inspect. Bid quality and commercial outcomes depend on the actual requirements, your expertise and the decisions of the buyer.
For work with several evidence lanes, version changes and explicit review gates, our n8n operating model explains the orchestration decisions. The platform choice still depends on your access, maintenance capacity and data path.
A useful first conversation
Bring one process that keeps getting stuck
Show us where the records arrive, who makes the decision and what the next person needs. We will map a useful first scope with you.
Book a call