ContraVault AI

You define the checks once, eligibility gates, red flags, financial ceilings, and every new tender gets scored against them. What used to be a bid/no-go decision made from memory becomes a recorded scorecard with the failed checks named. The output names which checks failed and links to the clause behind each one. Teams that used to argue from memory now argue from the same baseline.

The risk analyzer pulls out liquidated damages, indemnities, warranties, termination rights and non-standard payment terms, then ranks each by severity and estimated cost. A dollarized number is a guess, not gospel, but it forces the conversation about which risks you're pricing and which you're absorbing. Exports land in Excel or PDF for the bid review meeting.

Risk hides between documents as often as inside them. The tool compares specs, schedules, exhibits and addenda against each other and lists where requirements conflict or where a figure changes between volumes. Catching one contradictory dimension before submission often pays for the subscription.

Long tenders get compressed into a structured summary: scope, key dates, submission requirements, commercial terms, evaluation criteria. It's the document you circulate to people who will never open the 600-page original. Each line keeps its reference, so anyone can jump to the source.

Ambiguous scope and missing drawings turn into draft questions addressed to the client, written in the register tender documents expect. ContraVault reports 25,000+ clarifications drafted across its user base. Editing the wording still falls to you, and that's the right split.

AEC proposal software lives and dies on reuse, and this suite drafts responses using your library of past submissions and the tender's own headings, then fills recurring forms from stored company data. What you get is a workable first draft with the right structure, not a finished submission. Expect your writers to spend their time on win themes and evidence instead of formatting.