RFP integrity check
Scan your RFP documents for signs of directed procurement — specifications tailored to a single vendor, unnecessary certifications, tight timelines, and other fairness risks.
The integrity check scans an RFP for indicators that it was written to favour a specific vendor rather than to attract genuine competition. It complements the RFP quality review: quality review asks "is this RFP clearly written and complete?"; the integrity check asks "is this RFP actually open to competition, or has it been tailored for a predetermined winner?"
Use it when publishing your own RFP (internal fairness check) or when evaluating an incoming RFP you're thinking of bidding on (is it worth the effort?).
What it looks for
The AI reads your RFP documents and looks for signals across ten categories:
| Category | What it looks for |
|---|---|
| Overly specific requirements | Exact version numbers, proprietary interfaces, or specs that only one product on the market can satisfy |
| Unnecessary certifications | Certifications that aren't standard for this procurement type, especially if only a handful of vendors hold them |
| Unreasonable timelines | Proposal or delivery windows so tight that only an incumbent with existing infrastructure can meet them |
| Narrow experience requirements | Past-experience thresholds scoped so tightly (by geography, contract size, or sector combination) that only one vendor qualifies |
| Vendor-specific references | Direct or thinly-veiled references to a specific vendor, product, or brand — without "or equivalent" language |
| Unusual criteria weighting | Evaluation weights that don't reflect the stated objectives, or that systematically favour one type of bidder |
| Vendor material language | Criteria or specs that appear copied from a vendor's marketing or product documentation |
| Bundled unrelated requirements | Unrelated scope items combined so that only one large vendor can deliver everything |
| Restrictive eligibility | Turnover thresholds, insurance requirements, or geographic restrictions set higher than justified by the contract value or risk |
| Inconsistent scoring | Scoring methodology described inconsistently across documents, or weights that don't add up |
A single unusual requirement is usually not suspicious on its own. The AI looks for convergence — multiple indicators pointing in the same direction — before flagging an RFP as significantly or strongly directed.
Before you start
- Your RFP documents are uploaded and show Completed status (via the Upload RFP step)
- You have enough credits (check your balance in the top bar)
You don't need bids uploaded — this reviews the RFP itself.
Running an integrity check
Start the check
Click Integrity check in the sidebar workflow. If your RFP documents are ready, you'll see a Run integrity check button. Click it and the scan starts immediately.
Watch the progress
The agent reads each document systematically. You'll see a two-panel layout:
- Left panel — findings appear progressively as the AI identifies indicators
- Right panel — the agent activity feed shows each section being read and each finding being recorded in real time
The sidebar shows a spinning loader next to "Integrity check" while the scan is running.
Read the executive summary and findings
When the scan finishes you get an overall recommendation and an executive summary explaining the pattern the AI observed. Below that, findings are grouped by severity and collapsed by default — click any row to expand and see the full description, recommendation, and the exact RFP text that triggered the finding.
Understanding the recommendation
| Recommendation | What it means |
|---|---|
| No concerns | The RFP appears fair and genuinely open to competition. |
| Minor indicators | A few mild indicators present but the RFP overall looks legitimate. Issues are likely drafting choices rather than deliberate exclusion. |
| Significant indicators | Multiple notable indicators suggesting the RFP may be tailored toward a specific vendor. Worth closer scrutiny before publishing or bidding. |
| Strong indicators | A consistent pattern suggesting deliberate vendor preference or a material corruption risk. Should not be published without substantial revision and independent review. |
Severity levels
| Severity | What it means |
|---|---|
| Critical | Multiple converging indicators pointing to the same vendor preference, or a single indicator so specific that no innocent explanation is plausible. |
| Major | A clear indicator that is hard to explain by legitimate procurement need. Could disadvantage qualified vendors and invite challenge. |
| Minor | An indicator with plausible explanations but worth noting. May reflect poor drafting rather than intent. |
| Strength | A sign of fairness — clear evaluation methodology, brand-neutral specifications, reasonable timelines, transparent scoring. Recorded alongside issues so you see the full picture, not just the negatives. |
Findings include evidence
Every finding quotes the specific RFP text that triggered it and points to the section it came from. You can judge for yourself whether the AI's concern is warranted — no black-box conclusions.
Regenerating a check
If you've revised your RFP based on the findings and want a fresh scan, click Regenerate at the top of the integrity review. The new scan replaces the previous one. Each run costs credits.
Credit cost
An integrity check costs credits — typically less than a full bid analysis because it only reviews one document set. The cost depends on the size of your RFP. See pricing for details.
When to use it
- Before publishing your own RFP — get an independent read on whether anyone could reasonably call it rigged
- After drafting with multiple contributors — different authors sometimes pull in brand-specific language without realising it
- When deciding whether to bid on someone else's RFP — if the integrity check flags strong indicators, the effort of preparing a bid may not be justified
- During audit or compliance review — attach the findings export to your procurement file as evidence of fairness due diligence
The integrity check is complementary to the quality review. Quality review catches ambiguity and gaps; the integrity check catches favouritism and exclusion. Running both gives you the full picture.