How Go/No-Go Checks Save Time and Maximize Success

1. Introduction

In competitive industries like Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC), IT services, infrastructure development, and consulting in India, winning new projects often means competing in tenders and responding to detailed Requests for Proposals (RFPs). Tenders are the lifeblood of large projects – government departments and public-sector units in India collectively issue more than 100,000 tenders annually (across 60,000+ departments) for works worth crores of rupees. For private firms, these RFP opportunities can drive significant business growth. However, each tender response is a major commitment, requiring careful evaluation before bidding. This is where a Go/No-Go decision-making process comes into play in the pre-bid stage.

Go/No-Go reviews help companies quickly decide if a tender aligns with their strategic goals and is worth the effort. Unfortunately, in practice, many organizations still handle this step manually – gathering thick tender documents, emailing them across legal, technical, and finance teams, and holding lengthy meetings to decide whether to proceed. The result is often a slow, resource-intensive process that struggles to keep up with tight tender deadlines. The challenge is clear: current Go/No-Go reviews are manually intensive, time-consuming, and inefficient, causing companies to risk missing opportunities or scrambling last minute to prepare bids. In this blog, we’ll explore how a streamlined approach – and new AI tools – can save time and maximize success in tender bidding by optimizing the Go/No-Go step.

1.1 What Are Go/No-Go Checks?

A Go/No-Go check is a structured decision point where a company evaluates a potential bid opportunity and decides whether to proceed (“Go”) or decline (“No Go”). In other words, it’s a pre-bid checklist for tender bids that assesses the fit and feasibility of bidding on a particular tender. The Go/No-Go process is a crucial step in the tender management lifecycle – it helps organizations objectively evaluate whether to invest time and resources into preparing a full proposal. A Go/No-Go review typically occurs when a tender or RFP is identified before the detailed bid work begins.

This decision-making process is guided by predefined criteria (sometimes formalized as a Go/No-Go checklist) covering factors like strategic alignment, eligibility, risk level, and resource availability. By scoring the opportunity against these criteria, companies can determine if the tender is worth pursuing. The purpose is to mitigate risk and avoid wasted effort on bids that are unlikely to succeed or don’t fit the company’s strategy. A well-implemented Go/No-Go process promotes objectivity and ensures only worthy opportunities are chased. For example, if a project falls outside your core expertise or carries onerous contract terms, a No-Go decision upfront can save significant costs. On the flip side, a Go decision means the project is attractive and merits full bid preparation – which could involve mobilizing a team for technical solutioning, pricing, and compliance.

A conceptual “Go/No-Go” is a decision checklist with Yes/No options. Using a structured Go/No-Go checklist for tender bids helps companies quickly filter opportunities based on predefined criteria.

By using a Go/No-Go checklist for tender bids, companies improve risk mitigation, maintain strategic focus, and increase cost-efficiency in their business development efforts. It’s essentially an early warning system: saying “No-Go” to the wrong projects lets your team focus on bids you can win, and saying “Go” commits the organization to devote resources only when it makes sense.

1.2 Key Elements of a Tender Go/No-Go Checklist

What does a Go/No-Go checklist include? While specifics vary by company and industry, most tender Go/No-Go checklists cover a common set of critical factors. These criteria help decision-makers systematically evaluate the tender’s requirements and risks. Key elements of a tender Go/No-Go checklist typically include:

1. Basic Eligibility Check:
Do we meet the client’s eligibility criteria (years of experience, certifications, financial capacity, etc.)?

2. Strategic Alignment:
Does the project fit our core business, sector focus, and growth strategy?

3. Scope and Capability:
Can we deliver the project scope with our existing capabilities (technical know-how, staffing, equipment)?

4. Risk Clauses – Indemnities & Liabilities:
Are there onerous indemnification clauses or unlimited liability terms in the draft contract? (e.g. unlimited liability or lack of liability cap could be red flags).

5. Termination and Jurisdiction:
Check if termination terms are acceptable and which jurisdiction’s law would govern the contract (important if it’s a foreign jurisdiction or far from where you operate).

6. Payment Terms:
Are the payment timelines and milestones feasible for cash flow? (e.g. if payments are too back-ended or the client has a history of delays, that’s a concern).

7. Compliance and Legal Requirements:
Any unusual compliance clauses or regulatory requirements? (e.g. stringent safety standards, local content rules, etc., which we might not fulfill).

8. Project Timeline and Duration:
Is the project timeline realistic and can we meet it? Also, does the tender give enough time for bid preparation?

9. Competition and Chance of Winning:
Do we have an edge (e.g. prior relationship or unique solution) or is it a long-shot bid against too many competitors?

10. Cost-Benefit Analysis:
Roughly, is the expected project value worth the effort and cost of bidding? High bid costs or low contract value might discourage a bid.

11. Resource Availability:
Do we have resources available (bid team, technical experts) to prepare a quality proposal now, without hurting other ongoing bids/projects?

1.3 Sample Tender Go/No-Go Checklist:

Before bidding, ensure you can check off most of the following:

1. We meet all mandatory eligibility criteria (experience, certifications, financial turnover).

2. Project aligns with our service portfolio and growth strategy.

3. We have delivered similar projects (scope, size, complexity) successfully before.

4. No unacceptable contract clauses (indemnity, unlimited liability, penalty, termination) – or manageable with mitigation.

5. Payment terms are acceptable and won’t strain cash flow.

6. The timeline for execution (and bid submission) is realistic for us.

7. Necessary internal resources (proposal team, technical, legal) are available to prepare the bid on time.

8. The probability of winning is reasonably high (we understand the client, have competitive pricing, etc.).

If any of these conditions are not met, it’s likely a No-Go – pursuing the tender could pose a high risk or low reward. Conversely, if the checklist looks positive on all fronts, it’s a Go and time to assemble your bid team.

This systematic approach ensures important factors (like indemnification clauses or eligibility filters) aren’t overlooked in the heat of bidding. It provides a documented rationale for the decision and is especially useful in cross-functional discussions (e.g. getting input from legal on contract clauses, or from finance on payment terms). Over time, refining your Go/No-Go checklist will improve decision quality and bid success rates.

2. The Manual Process: Why It’s Broken

Despite the value of Go/No-Go reviews, many companies handle them in a manual, ad-hoc way that struggles to keep up with business needs. Let’s paint the picture: a new tender arrives, and the clock is ticking. In a manual process, someone needs to read through hundreds of pages of tender documents, identify key risks (legal clauses, technical requirements), email various departments for input, maybe call a meeting or two, and then finally reach a decision – all before even starting the actual bid work. This approach is riddled with challenges and inefficiencies:

2.1 Slow, Labor-Intensive Reviews:

Manually reviewing tender documents is time-consuming. Legal teams must scan for troublesome clauses, commercial teams analyze payment terms, and technical teams gauge scope feasibility. This sequential approach can take days or weeks per tender. In India, tender timelines are often strict – for example, limited tenders typically allow only 21–30 days for bid submission, but some have been as short as 7 days. A sluggish internal Go/No-Go review eats into the precious time available, leaving the bid team rushed to prepare the proposal if they decide to go forward.

2.2 Cross-Functional Coordination:

A Go/No-Go decision often requires input from multiple stakeholders – sales or bid managers, legal counsel, project delivery heads, finance, etc. In a manual process, coordinating these people is a challenge. Scheduling meetings that fit everyone’s calendar can cause delays. Meanwhile, the tender deadline is approaching. The opportunity cost of slow reviews is high: a study on bidding processes noted that when bid teams are pressed for time, they often cannot submit all the bids they want to, don’t have time to polish proposals, and suffer stress and burnout, resulting in a lower win rate and higher cost per bid.

2.3 Inconsistent Risk Assessment:

Manual reviews rely on individual expertise and memory. Important details can be missed, especially when juggling multiple tenders. One tender might slip through with an unfavorable clause unnoticed until after submission. The process lacks a central knowledge base – lessons learned in past contracts (e.g. a problematic indemnity clause) might not be remembered by everyone. This inconsistency is risky. Manual Go/No-Go review challenges also include potential bias – without a clear checklist, teams might pursue a pet project even if objectively it’s high-risk, or conversely reject a viable tender due to incomplete information.

2.4 Resource Drain and Costs:

Every manual review consumes hours of senior staff time – legal vetting contracts, engineers estimating feasibility, etc. If your company sees dozens of tenders a month, the collective effort spent on Go/No-Go decisions alone is huge. This is time not spent on billable work or improving the actual proposals. Moreover, a slow decision process might lead to last-minute bid rushes – working overtime to finish a proposal because the go-ahead came late. That can incur overtime costs and quality issues in the bid. Cross-functional reviewers also face context-switching interruptions, hurting overall productivity.

2.5 Risk of Missed Opportunities:

Ironically, an inefficient process can cause good opportunities to be missed. If it takes you two weeks to decide on a bid, an attractive tender might already be halfway to the deadline or require an extension you can’t get. Or your competitors, being nimbler, may engage the client early while you’re still debating internally. As a result, companies with slow Go/No-Go cycles may end up pursuing fewer tenders than they could, directly impacting revenue potential.

In summary, the manual Go/No-Go review process is broken for modern needs. It’s slow, inefficient, and risky. As one analysis of bidding best practices noted, compiling information for internal Go/No-Go decisions and chasing colleagues for input are “time thieves” that steal focus from what really matters. When public procurement in India is heavily regulated and document-heavy, spending excessive time on the preliminary decision adds to the burden. The need for a faster, smarter way to evaluate tenders is evident. Companies that streamline this step gain a competitive advantage by responding to opportunities faster and with greater confidence.

To quantify the challenge: imagine a mid-size EPC firm that manually reviews every tender. If on average an open tender in India gives around 4–6 weeks for bid submission, and the internal Go/No-Go decision consumes 1-2 weeks, that’s up to 50% of the total time gone just deciding whether to bid. Reducing that decision time from weeks to hours or minutes can dramatically improve an organization’s ability to participate in more bids and prepare stronger proposals. It’s no wonder that forward-looking firms are seeking ways to automate and accelerate this process.

3. The Rise of AI in Tender Reviews

Across industries, organizations are embracing Artificial Intelligence to streamline document-heavy workflows – and tender management is no exception. In the legal and contract review domain especially, AI has made significant strides. AI-powered tools can now scan lengthy contracts or RFP documents in seconds, flag key clauses, and even assess risks based on predefined criteria. This is transforming how Go/No-Go evaluations can be conducted. Instead of a human painstakingly reading clause by clause, an AI engine can highlight all indemnity clauses, payment terms, termination conditions, etc., instantly for the team to consider. The broader trend is clear: AI adoption in contract review and legal tech is rising rapidly.

Indian companies, in particular, are starting to leverage AI in procurement and legal workflows as part of the country’s digital transformation. According to a 2024 IBM study, about 59% of Indian enterprises (with 1000+ employees) have actively deployed AI in their business – the highest among nations surveyed. This surge is driven by tangible benefits: speed, accuracy, and the ability to centralize organizational knowledge. In the context of tender reviews, AI offers several compelling advantages:

3.1 Lightning-Fast Document Analysis:

AI contract analysis tools can parse huge tender documents and identify relevant content in moments. For example, a state-of-the-art AI can reduce due diligence document review time by up to 70% on average. Applied to tenders, what used to take a legal team many hours can be done in minutes – scanning for red-flag clauses or compliance requirements across hundreds of pages.

3.2 Improved Accuracy and Consistency:

Machines don’t get tired or overlook sections. AI will check every page and clause diligently. This means fewer chances of missing a problematic term hidden in the fine print. It also means every tender is evaluated against the same standards. By training AI on your company’s Go/No-Go criteria and past decisions, you get consistent risk scoring for each new tender. One consulting study noted that manual tender management is prone to errors, whereas digital solutions enforce consistency.

3.3 Centralized Knowledge Base:

Over time, an AI system can build a knowledge base of how your company evaluates risks. For instance, it “learns” that a certain indemnity clause was deemed unacceptable in a past bid – so the next time it appears, the AI flags it immediately. This captures institutional memory, which is especially useful in companies with high staff turnover or geographically spread teams. It’s like having your best legal expert review every tender, every time, instantly.

3.4 Collaboration and Accessibility:

Modern AI review tools often come with dashboards and collaboration features. The tender documents and the AI’s findings can be shared on a cloud platform where all stakeholders (legal, finance, technical) see a unified view. Comments and decisions can be logged right there, rather than scattered in emails. In India’s large enterprises, where teams might be spread across multiple cities, this centralized approach is far more efficient than flying files (or people) around for meetings.

The legal tech market in India is already growing rapidly – valued at around $385 million in 2020 – and contract review automation is a key area of focus. Many Indian legal teams have started using AI-powered contract review software to analyze agreements and ensure compliance, freeing up lawyers for higher-value advisory work. In fact, 72% of legal professionals globally view AI as a positive force that can handle routine tasks like document review. These tools are extending into procurement: reviewing vendor contracts, purchase orders, and tender terms.

Crucially, AI is not about replacing human judgment in the Go/No-Go decision – it’s about augmenting it. An AI might flag that the tender has a jurisdiction clause for foreign courts and a payment schedule with 50% on completion. The decision-makers still apply their business judgment to decide if that’s acceptable given the project’s value. But they do so with full information at their fingertips and within hours of the tender being published, rather than after days of hunting for details.

The bottom line benefits of AI in tender review are speed and scale. Companies can evaluate more tenders in parallel because the heavy lifting of reading and initial analysis is handled by the AI. This leads to faster bid turnarounds and an expanded bid pipeline. And when it comes to preparing the bid, the same AI can assist in drafting compliant responses or checking your proposal against the tender requirements – further saving time downstream.

Indian businesses are increasingly recognizing these benefits. Early adopters in the infrastructure and IT sectors report significantly shorter bid cycles and improved bid quality after introducing AI into their tendering process. Embracing AI for Go/No-Go and contract risk reviews allows organizations to reduce weeks of manual effort to seconds, and reinvest that time into crafting winning proposals and strengthening client relationships.

4. Introducing: The Go/No-Go Reviewer (AI-Powered Tool)

To address the pain points of manual tender evaluation, innovative solutions like a “Go/No-Go Reviewer” tool have emerged. Imagine a software assistant that can perform a first-pass tender review the moment you download the RFP – highlighting all the critical issues and even suggesting a Go or No-Go recommendation. That’s essentially what the Go/No-Go Reviewer offers. It leverages AI and machine learning to automate the pre-bid evaluation process. Here’s how it works:

4.1 Automatic Clause Detection:

Upload the tender (RFP document, draft contract, etc.) into the tool, and within seconds it scans for key clauses and conditions. It will pinpoint indemnity clauses, liability caps (or absence thereof), payment terms, LD (liquidated damages) or penalty clauses, termination and exit conditions, jurisdiction and arbitration clauses, and compliance requirements. For example, the tool might flag: “No liability cap found – potential unlimited liability.” or “Payment: 20% on completion – note cash flow impact.” This immediate insight saves legal and commercial teams from hunting through the document.

4.2 Risk Scoring and Recommendation:

The Go/No-Go Reviewer uses your predefined criteria to score the tender on various aspects (perhaps on a 0-5 scale for each checklist item). It might rate the contractual risk as High due to a tough indemnity, but the strategic fit as Medium, and the project value as High, etc. These scores feed into an overall Go/No-Go recommendation dashboard. For instance, it could show a red alert indicating too many No-Go factors, or a green light that it’s generally safe to proceed. Think of it as an AI-driven decision matrix – it won’t unilaterally decide for you, but it gives a clear picture to support your decision.

4.3 Real-Time Collaboration:

The tool provides a centralized dashboard where all stakeholders can review the findings. Legal can add a note like “Indemnity clause unacceptable as-is, but negotiable” and mark that risk as mitigable. The sales or bid manager can see all inputs in one place. This real-time sharing means no more email back-and-forth with giant attachments – everyone looks at the same “single source of truth” about the tender’s risks and requirements. It’s especially handy if multiple tenders are being evaluated simultaneously; each has its own space in the tool with the analysis results.

4.4 Knowledge Bank Integration:

Over time, the Go/No-Go Reviewer can integrate with your knowledge base. If you have a library of past tender decisions or contract clause fallbacks, the AI can incorporate those. For example, if your company policy is “we do not accept arbitration outside India,” the tool will remember and flag any tender with a foreign arbitration clause. This ensures organizational policies are consistently applied. It also learns from what you mark as “Go” versus “No-Go” to refine its future recommendations.

The value proposition of the Go/No-Go Reviewer tool is compelling: it can reduce weeks of manual evaluation to seconds. Instead of spending 10 days in committee reviewing a tender, you could have an AI-generated report the same day the tender is issued. This means faster bid/no-bid decisions and consequently faster mobilization of your bid team for the opportunities you choose to pursue. Companies using such a tool have reported outcomes like faster bid turnarounds, the ability to evaluate more tenders with the same team, and a reduced resource drain on senior experts. In essence, your team’s valuable time is freed up – lawyers can focus on negotiating contracts rather than spotting issues, and technical experts can spend more time on solution design rather than reading boilerplate.

From a strategic perspective, the Go/No-Go Reviewer enables you to scale your bid pipeline efficiently. If previously you could only thoroughly vet 5 tenders a month manually, now you might handle 15 because the initial vetting is instant. That means a higher chance to find the right projects and win more. It also provides peace of mind – you can respond to management or client inquiries quickly, since you have a rapid analysis at hand.

5. Case Study: Faster Bidding for an EPC Firm (Hypothetical)

To illustrate the difference, consider the example of ABC Infrastructure Ltd., a mid-sized Indian EPC contractor. ABC Infra bids for infrastructure projects like highway construction and water treatment plants. Let’s see their process before and after implementing the Go/No-Go Reviewer tool:

5.1 Before (Manual Process):

ABC Infra would receive an RFP from the government e-procurement portal. The business development manager would print out the key documents (often 200+ pages) and circulate them via email to the legal advisor and project team. They set up a meeting a week later to discuss. By the time they gathered inputs from legal (who flagged a broad indemnity clause) and finance (concerns on payment schedule), 10 days had passed. They decided it was a “Go” for bidding, but now had only two weeks left until the submission deadline. The team rushed to put together the technical solution and price, working long hours. In some cases, they had to request deadline extensions because the internal approval came so late. On average, ABC Infra could only thoroughly evaluate 4–5 tenders per quarter due to this lengthy process. They often skipped promising opportunities simply because they didn’t have the bandwidth to review them in time.

5.2 After (AI-Powered Go/No-Go Reviewer):

Now, when an RFP is released, the manager uploads it to the Go/No-Go Reviewer on day one. By day two, the tool generates a report: “Jurisdiction is local (Indian law) – OK; Payment 50% on completion – moderate risk, flag for cash flow; Indemnity clause unlimited – high risk.” The dashboard shows a moderate overall risk score. The legal advisor logs in, sees the flagged indemnity, and adds: “Can negotiate cap during contracting; not a showstopper.” The project director sees the timeline and confirms they can meet it. Within 24-48 hours, ABC Infra makes a decision to proceed with the bid. They now have a full month to prepare the proposal, allowing a much more thorough job. Over the next quarter, ABC Infra’s team handles 15 tenders through the system. The AI filtered out 5 as clear No-Go (saving the effort), and the team went ahead with 10 bids. This is 3× more bids per quarter than before. The proposal quality also improved since the team had more time per bid. Importantly, their pre-bid review time per tender dropped by an estimated 80% – what used to take 10 days of discussion now took just 2 days with the AI-assisted review.

By implementing the tool, ABC Infrastructure saw tangible benefits: They could respond to more opportunities without adding staff, and their win rate improved because they focused only on well-matched projects and had adequate time to prepare each bid. The hypothetical numbers might vary in a real scenario, but they illustrate a pattern echoed by early users of such technology – dramatic time savings and the ability to leverage internal expertise more effectively. Instead of spending those 10 days combing documents, their legal and technical experts spent that time refining execution plans and competitive pricing strategies for the bids, which ultimately strengthened their chance of success.

In sum, the case of ABC Infra highlights how moving from a manual Go/No-Go process to an AI-driven one can transform a company’s tendering efficiency. In a field where a single big project win can be worth hundreds of crores, maximizing the number of quality bids you submit is key. An optimized Go/No-Go process directly contributes to that goal by removing the bottleneck of preliminary bid evaluation.

6. FAQs

Q1: What is a Go/No-Go checklist in tender bidding?

A: It’s a predefined list of criteria that a company reviews to decide whether to pursue a tender or not. The Go/No-Go checklist for tender bidding covers aspects like eligibility, strategic fit, risk factors (contract terms, liabilities), resource availability, and bid competitiveness. If the tender meets enough criteria (Go), the company proceeds to prepare a bid. If not (No-Go), they politely decline the opportunity. It’s essentially a tool to ensure you only bid for projects that make sense for your business.

Q2: How do companies make Go/No-Go decisions?

A: Typically through a combination of checklist evaluation and stakeholder input. First, relevant teams (business development, legal, technical, finance) assess the tender against the Go/No-Go criteria. They might score the opportunity or flag concerns. Then a decision meeting (or email approval) is done where a senior manager or committee weighs the pros and cons and decides “Yes, bid” or “No bid”. Many companies use a formal Go/No-Go form or matrix to document this decision for each opportunity. Increasingly, companies are speeding up this process with software tools that automatically analyze the tender documents and provide a recommendation, which the team then confirms.

Q3: Can Go/No-Go decisions be automated?

A: Up to a point, yes. While the final decision involves human judgment, much of the groundwork can be automated. AI-driven tender review tools (like the Go/No-Go Reviewer we discussed) can read tender documents and highlight key factors – essentially filling out the checklist and even giving a preliminary recommendation. For straightforward cases (e.g., a tender clearly fails a must-have criterion), the system might suggest a No-Go immediately. However, human decision-makers will always have the final say, taking into account nuances like client relationships or strategic value that an algorithm might not fully grasp. In practice, automation accelerates the process and makes it more objective, but it doesn’t completely remove humans from the loop (nor should it).

Q4: What clauses should I watch for in tenders?

A: Some of the top clauses and terms to scrutinize in any tender or draft contract are: Indemnification clauses (detailing what liabilities you must cover – watch out for unlimited indemnity), Limitation of Liability (ideally there’s a cap on liability, lack of one is a risk), Termination clause (conditions under which the client can terminate the contract – unfair terms could be risky), Payment terms (milestone payment schedule, any advance, any holdback or delay in payment), Warranty and penalty clauses (performance guarantees, liquidated damages for delays – assess if they are reasonable), Governing law and dispute resolution (jurisdiction and arbitration, especially if it’s an international client), Scope and change order terms (is the scope clearly defined and how are changes handled to avoid scope creep), and Compliance requirements (like statutory compliance, ESG requirements, labor laws – ensure you can meet them). These clauses directly impact risk and cost, so they heavily influence a Go/No-Go decision. Having a checklist or an AI tool that flags these clauses is very useful so you don’t miss any.

Conclusion

In the fast-paced world of tendering in India, making faster and more reliable Go/No-Go decisions is no longer a luxury – it’s a necessity for staying competitive. Tenders and RFPs will continue to be central to winning new projects, especially in sectors like EPC, IT, and infrastructure where large contracts are awarded through competitive bidding. To capitalize on these opportunities, companies must streamline their internal bid/no-bid evaluations. We’ve seen how the traditional manual approach can bog down teams, potentially costing valuable time, and money, and even causing missed bids. On the other hand, introducing structure and technology into this process yields immediate benefits: quicker decisions, better risk management, and more bandwidth to increase your bid pipeline.

Technological solutions, particularly AI-driven tools, are playing a transformative role in this space. They complement the expertise of your legal and sales teams by handling the grunt work of document analysis. By doing so, they enable your organization to scale up the tender bidding process without scaling up costs linearly. The Go/No-Go Reviewer example demonstrates that it’s possible to review more tenders, more thoroughly, in a fraction of the time it used to take. This means you can pursue more contracts and do so with greater confidence that you’re choosing the right battles to fight.

In conclusion, companies that leverage a robust Go/No-Go framework – potentially turbocharged by AI – will save time and maximize their success rate in tender bidding. They will enter bids with eyes wide open about the risks and requirements, and they’ll avoid squandering resources on long-shot or misaligned opportunities. The tender landscape in India is huge and growing, and those who can respond with agility and insight will lead the pack. It’s time to move away from binder files and tedious meetings and embrace smart tools that let you decide “Go” or “No-Go” with speed and precision. Faster decisions lead to faster actions, and in the end, that agility could be the difference between winning that next big project or coming in second.

Explore Go/No-Go Reviewer to see how technology can empower your bid decisions. By investing in better decision processes today, you set your organization up for greater bid wins tomorrow. Don’t let the opportunity slip by due to inefficiency – transform your tender bidding strategy with a streamlined Go/No-Go check and watch your success rate climb.

Meta Description

Discover how Go/No-Go checks help companies decide which tenders to pursue. Learn how AI can reduce weeks of manual effort to seconds with smart tender review tools.