Three proposals. One considered decision.
Compare commercial terms across documents, inspect the passages behind each finding, and keep missing information in the review.
Illustrative workflow. All supplier names, documents, and figures below are fictional.
Start with the decision, not the files.
A procurement review rarely ends with a summary of each proposal. You need to know where the offers differ, which terms matter, and what still needs clarification.
Compare these suppliers on annual cost, implementation timeline, and payment terms. Cite the relevant passages and flag gaps.
Bring the authorized documents into your knowledge workflow, then define the comparison criteria. Document Matrix and structured extraction help organize the results.
Make the differences visible.
This fictional example puts the same criteria against each proposal.
| Criterion | Atlas | Northstar | Meridian |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual cost | $240,000 | $185,000 | $220,000 |
| Delivery | 12 weeks | 8 weeks | 10 weeks |
| Payment | Net 30 | Net 45 | Net 30 |
Finding: Northstar proposes the lowest annual cost and shortest timeline. That does not establish the best overall choice: migration scope, support coverage, and implementation dependencies still need review.
Keep the gaps in the deliverable.
- Check the passage. Read the delivery commitment in context, including any conditions.
- Compare like with like. Make sure fees include comparable services and exclusions.
- Ask the next question. Request a common statement of work before selecting a supplier.
The useful output is a comparison, its supporting references, and a clear list of unresolved terms. A human reviewer owns the final decision.
Read the full supplier report