The margin went somewhere. Usually it is written in the tender.
LD rates, notice periods, price variation that does not cover copper, payment tied to commissioning. Clauses nobody priced, found and cited to the page, and approved by a qualified reviewer before you read them.
25 minutes. No documents needed for the call.
Early stage. We have no customers and no results to show yet, so we are asking questions first.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE
Special conditions.pdf — page 14 of 32
7.2 The Sub-contractor shall observe the programme issued by the Contractor and shall
7.3 The Contractor may issue revised programmes from time to time.
ApprovedThe quoted words, highlighted on page 14
B2 · Special conditions · page 14
Source verifiedYou priced the work. You did not price the clauses.
A tender package runs to several hundred pages. The commercial terms are spread across the NIT, the GCC, the SCC that overrides the GCC, the special conditions, the specifications and three corrigenda that arrived after your estimate was half done. Your team has days, not weeks.
So the work gets priced and the clauses get skimmed. Then, two years later:
- LD is deducted at a rate and a cap nobody checked, against a completion date nobody traced, for delays the site had no hindrance register to show.
- A variation is refused because the item was arguably inside the scope text, or the drawing, or the specification — and the three do not agree with each other.
- Payment arrives late, or is tied to commissioning or handover, and you carry the money at your own borrowing rate while the BG sits extended.
- Price variation does not cover what moved. Copper and aluminium went up; the PV clause has a base date, a ceiling, or indices that do not include them.
- The back-to-back terms did not flow down. Your LD, warranty and BG obligations to the employer are not matched in the orders you placed on your subcontractor or your supplier.
- The notice was never sent, because the clause that required it in seven days was on page 142 and nobody read page 142.
None of this is unusual, and none of it is anybody's fault in particular. A bid team under a real deadline reads what it has time to read.
But the paper was there before you signed. That is the part worth looking at.
The tender journey
This is the journey, not a screenshot of a product. There is no login today — you send the documents, and the work is done by hand with a named reviewer. Available now is what we do today. Coming is specified and being built. Not us is work we do not do.
The eight stages, in words
This list is part of the page, not a fallback. Keyboard focus moves through it in journey order — stage, then the items attached to it — and whatever has focus is what the panel on the right is showing.
The whole set, or we refuse it and say why — we never review half a package.
You send the whole set — NIT, GCC, SCC, BOQ, specifications, drawings, corrigenda and pre-bid replies. The document and page counts are known before anything is read. If the set is incomplete, we refuse it and say what is missing.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE
A1 NIT · B2 SCC · C1 BOQ · 3 corrigenda · 412 pages
Corrigenda that are photographs of paper. A quote matched against our OCR will never read “Source verified”.
Some corrigenda and notices arrive as photographs of paper, with no text underneath for the AI to read. Reading those is being built, and when it lands a quote matched against our own OCR will carry its own state — it will never read “Source verified”. Until then the reviewer reads those pages, and the report lists every page we could not read and why, because a page we could not read is not a page we found nothing in.
Each commercial risk comes back with the file, the page and the exact quote, checked against the page by code.
A named reviewer reads each finding against its page and approves or rejects it. Rejected findings do not reach you. Their name and the time stay on it.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE
Price variation excludes copper
B2 · Special conditions · page 14
Source verifiedWe never put a number on a risk, and we never tell you to bid or walk away.
Pricing a clause is a commercial call that depends on your rates, your borrowing cost and how much you want the job. The review report puts no rupee figure on any risk, and we never tell you to bid or to walk away. The one place a rupee range appears is the post-mortem on a closed project, where the loss has already happened and every assumption behind the range is written out.
LD, BG, retention, payment, price variation, back-to-back — covered, uncovered, or not asked.
An item-by-item list — what the review looked for, and what it found nothing against — is being built. Today, where we have looked for a commercial item and have no finding against it, we say “no finding in this package covers this item”, in those words. That tells you about our findings. It does not tell you the clause is not in your contract, and we will not say that it does.
risks found — and queried before the deadline
A numbered letter asking the employer to clarify, each query carrying its clause and page.
Each query is tied to one approved finding and carries its document and its page, so the employer can see exactly what is being asked about. It asks the employer to clarify; it never asserts a right. You send it, in the employer’s own format and under your own name, before the query deadline.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE
3. Price variation — basis of indices
B2 · Special conditions · page 14
Approved for exportPre-bid meeting, query deadline, submission, bid and BG validity, completion — each cited, formulas left as formulas.
A cited table of the dates that decide a bid — pre-bid meeting, query deadline, submission, bid and BG validity, completion — is being built. Where the document gives a formula instead of a date, so many days from the work order, we will carry the formula and not compute a date from it. Today a person reads the query deadline out of the document and types it.
If the query is answered → the reply is a document, and it goes back into the review
If it is not → it is a priced risk, or a decision not to bid
Nothing of ours leaves on its own: no portal upload, no email, no alert.
We do not upload to a portal, send an email, or raise an alert, and we have no integration that pushes anything into anyone else’s system. The submission is yours, and so is the deadline. Nothing of ours leaves at all until a named person has approved it.
award
The signature is yours. We do not sign, and we do not tell you to.
We do not sign anything for you, and we do not tell you whether to sign. Once the agreement, the LoA and the conditions are signed, the terms are fixed, and the useful thing then is to know exactly what is in them. That is the same review, run on the set as signed — the step attached to this one.
The same review, after award: the agreement, the LoA and the conditions that bind you.
Nobody has given us a contract set after award yet.
Whether the LD, warranty, BG and payment you owe upward flowed down into the orders you placed.
The LD, warranty, BG and payment terms you owe the employer are either matched by the orders you placed on your subcontractors and suppliers, or they are not. Checking the one set against the other is specified and not built. It is not part of a review today, and we will not imply that it is.
A corrigendum or a revision, compared word by word, so you can see which words moved.
There is no login. You get the comparison in a report or on a call.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE
B2 rev 2 vs rev 1 · 1 clause changed
Scope text, drawing and specification saying different things. We will cite each one, and cite the precedence clause. We will not tell you which governs.
The scope text, the drawing and the specification can say different things about the same item, and that gap is where a refused variation gets argued. Finding those disagreements and citing each one is being built. When it lands we will cite the contract’s own precedence clause alongside them, and we will not tell you which document governs — that reading is for you and your advocate.
Finding and citing a notice period is the review. Drafting the notice, reminding you of the date, or working out what you are owed is not us.
Finding the clause that requires a notice in seven days, and citing the page it sits on, is part of the review. Writing that notice, keeping the diary of the date, or working out what you are owed is not something we do, and it is not planned. That work belongs to your own team, a claims consultancy or your advocate.
Not legal advice, not a claim document. With a live claim we step back unless your advocate brings us in.
We are not lawyers and this is not legal advice. We do not tell you whether a clause is enforceable, whether anyone is in breach, or whether you have a claim — those are questions for your advocate. And we do not take on a project with a live claim, conciliation or arbitration, unless your advocate brings us in.
the project closes, and the margin never came
One closed project where the margin never came: what happened, the clause it traces to, and whether it was visible before the bid.
We have not run this on a real project yet. You would be the first.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE
- Detectable before bid
- Records gap
40 flags · 2 became a loss
₹ low – ₹ high (assumptions listed)
Stage 1 of 8
The package arrives
Available now
The whole set, or we refuse it and say why — we never review half a package.
You send the whole set — NIT, GCC, SCC, BOQ, specifications, drawings, corrigenda and pre-bid replies. The document and page counts are known before anything is read. If the set is incomplete, we refuse it and say what is missing.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE
A1 NIT · B2 SCC · C1 BOQ · 3 corrigenda · 412 pages
How a review works
You send the package.
Risks are found and linked to their page.
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE
“be bound by all obligations of the Contractor under the Main Contract in so far as they relate to the Sub-contract Works.”
A named reviewer approves each finding, one at a time.
You get a report, and the pre-bid queries to go with it.
What you decide. Everything. We do not price the risk, we do not sign, we do not submit, and we do not tell you to bid or walk away. We show you what the documents say and why it matters commercially. The decision is a commercial one, and it is yours.
How it actually runs today. There is no login and no portal. You send the documents to [founder name], and the founder does the work by hand with the reviewer, using our own tools. We are building the software out of the parts that turn out to be repeated manual work, not before.
Who this is for
Electrical and MEP contractors in India, roughly ₹20 to ₹200 crore of annual revenue, bidding government, PSU and private work. Usually the owner, or the person who carries the commercial side: contracts head, commercial head, or the senior estimator who ends up carrying it anyway.
It is probably not for you if your legal or contracts department already reads every tender clause by clause, or if your projects are small enough that a bad clause does not change the year.
What we are not
- Not a tender portal. We do not find tenders, search portals or tell you what to bid on. You bring the package you are already working on.
- Not a PDF chatbot. You do not get a chat window and uncited answers. You get findings, each one checked by a person against its page.
- Not a clause library. We do not supply clause wording, model contracts or redrafts. We read the documents you already have and cite what is in them. The words in the report come from your package, not from a bank of ours.
- Not lawyers, and not legal advice. We review commercial risk. We tell you what a clause says and what it may cost. We do not tell you whether a clause is enforceable, whether anyone is in breach, or whether you have a claim. Those are questions for your advocate, and the report marks them that way.
- Not a claims consultancy. We do not draft notices, claim letters or pleadings, and we do not calculate entitlement.
- We never sign, price, submit or commit anything for you. No automatic email, no alert to anyone, no document leaving on its own. Nothing goes anywhere without a named person approving it first.
What we can stand behind today
We are early. We have no customers to name, no results to show and no badges to put on this page. Here is what is actually true, today:
Every finding carries its source.
The file, the page and the quote. The model is not allowed to type a page number or a quote — the citation comes from the system that read the document, and our code then checks the quoted words against the text on that page. The result is on the finding, in words: Source verified, Needs check, Source check failed, No source, or Source and record disagree. A finding whose check failed, whose citation is missing, or whose record disagrees cannot be approved at all, so it never reaches you. No finding reaches you without a source.
A named person approves every finding before it reaches you.
Not a review process. A person, with a name and a qualification, who approves or rejects each finding against its page, and whose name and timestamp stay on it. Approvals are written to a log that cannot be edited after the fact.
Nothing leaves without that approval.
There is one exit: the approved report. No alerts to WhatsApp, no automatic email, no integration quietly pushing a finding into someone else's system.
Your documents stay private.
They are kept in one place, used only for your review, and not put into commits, logs, test files or web searches. We agree a deletion date with you in writing before we start. If any part of the review sends your documents to an AI provider outside India, we name that provider and we do not do it without your written permission.
What we do not have.
No ISO or DPDP certification, no SOC report, no “bank-grade” anything. We have not been audited by anyone. If a certificate is what you need before you share documents, we do not have one yet, and we would rather you knew that now.
Start with a project that already lost money
Before you give us a live tender, give us a dead one.
Pick one closed project where the work was done and the margin never came: a variation refused, LD deducted, payment that arrived a year late, a notice that was never sent. We review that one project and show you where the margin went, and what in the documents might have caught it earlier.
What you get
- A short report. Each finding: what happened, the clause or document it traces to, the file and page, the exact quote, and whether it was visible before the bid, during the work, or not visible at all.
- The cost of the loss, as a low-to-high range per finding, with every assumption written out. Not a single headline figure, and not an estimate of what could have been recovered.
- Where the records are not there. If the paper needed to show something was never kept, the report says so, and says where we looked. We cannot create a record that nobody wrote.
- A count of everything a pre-bid read would have flagged, next to how many of those actually became a loss. If a read gives forty flags and two mattered, you should know that. We already know how this project ended, and that makes the warning look obvious. We will tell you where that is doing the work.
- A call to go through it with you.
[X working days] of our work, over about two to four weeks. Most of the elapsed time is you finding the documents, not us reading them. (Our estimate. We have not run this on a real project yet.)
[price — founder to set]
If we find nothing useful, we tell you and we do not issue a report. A padded report is worth less than an honest “we could not show it”. The fee position if that happens is written into the engagement letter before we start.
Before we can start, these have to be true. We will not take documents until they are:
- You confirm in writing that you are allowed to share these documents.
- A qualified reviewer is named, with no connection to the project, its employer or its subcontractors.
- There is a signed engagement letter.
- The project is closed, with no live claim, conciliation or arbitration — unless your advocate brings us in.
- You agree, in writing, to the AI processing involved, including any provider outside India.
- A deletion date is agreed.
What this is not. Not legal advice. Not a claim document. Not a prediction that you will recover anything, and not a judgement on anyone who worked on the project. Some findings will be too late, or not practical to have acted on. We will say so.
25 minutes. No documents needed for the call.
Questions
No. We review commercial risk. We tell you what a clause says, where it is, and what it may cost you. We do not tell you whether a clause is valid or enforceable, whether anyone is in breach, or whether you have a claim. Those are questions for an advocate, and the report marks them as such.
[Reviewer name, qualification] — a qualified reviewer with no connection to your project, its employer or its subcontractors. They read each finding against its source page and approve or reject it. Their name and the time of approval are on every finding you receive. Findings they reject never reach you.
[price — founder to set]. We agree the price and the engagement letter in writing before we take a single document.
Because those are tools and this is a review. A subscription tool gives you a list of flags, as fast as you can upload. You then have to check each one yourself, because nothing has verified that the quote matches the page or that the flag matters on this tender. Here, a named person has already done that, and every quote has been checked against the page by code. We are also careful about the other half of it: where we have looked for a commercial item and have no finding against it, we say “no finding in this package covers this item” — in those words. That tells you about our findings. It does not tell you the clause is not in your contract, and we will not say that it does. If what you need is a fast, cheap first pass, a subscription tool is the right thing to buy, and we will say so.
They are kept in one place, used only for your review, and never put into commits, logs, test files or web searches. We agree a deletion date with you in writing before we start. If the review needs an AI provider outside India, we name it and we do not proceed without your written permission.
No, and we will not pretend to. Sometimes the documents do not show what happened. Sometimes the records that would have shown it were never kept. If we cannot support a useful finding, we tell you that plainly and we do not issue a report.
Yes, that is the longer-term work, and the review is the same one. We prefer to start with a closed project, because it lets you judge the output without putting a live bid on a firm you have not worked with before. If you have a tender closing soon and you want to start there instead, say so on the call.
Not yet. You would be among the first. There are no case studies on this page because we have not done any, and no testimonials because nobody has given one. You would be judging us on one report about one of your own projects, which is a reasonable way to judge us.
Talk to us about one past project
25 minutes, with [founder name]. No documents needed for this call, and nothing to sign.