Example opportunity.
| Buyer type | Local authority |
|---|---|
| Need | Case-management software support and migration |
| Route | Open tender with portal registration |
| Deadline window | 18 working days |
| Initial TenderLead decision | REVIEW until migration proof is confirmed |
Score breakdown.
| Category | Score | Reasoning | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buyer fit | 18 / 20 | Local authority buyer matches existing council and public-service references. | Attach the two closest references. |
| Route access | 17 / 20 | Open route, but portal registration and document download must be confirmed today. | Register and pull full pack. |
| Evidence strength | 13 / 20 | Support proof is strong. Migration proof is weaker and could decide the bid. | Find named migration evidence or skip. |
| Deadline risk | 14 / 20 | 18 working days is workable only if reviewers are assigned this week. | Assign bid owner and reviewer. |
| Bid effort | 14 / 20 | Effort appears proportionate if migration evidence is real. | Keep in REVIEW until proof is found. |
TenderLead-style output.
Decision
REVIEW. Do not start full drafting until the migration evidence gap is closed.
Why not BID yet?
The buyer fit and route look good, but the likely scoring weight may punish weak migration proof.
Why not SKIP?
The support fit, public-sector references and deadline window are strong enough to justify one evidence check.
Deadline risk
Assign a bid owner within 24 hours or move to SKIP to protect team time.
How a team would use this.
The scorecard should trigger a short decision call, not a long bid meeting. The useful question is: can we prove the weak category quickly? If not, the tender should leave the active bid pipeline.