A GKM Legacy Holdings company · contracting in Maryland, USA · delivering from Accra, Ghana
InsightsWhere we workFrançais
Strategic Advisory
& AI
Book a consultation
A concrete passage with tall glass pivot doors in steel frames standing one behind another. One door stands half turned. Beyond the last, a bright room looks onto the sea, with one ruby glass lamp hanging in it.

Bid/no-bid decision matrix

Eligibility first. Then the score.

Try the workbench
What the film shows, in words
  1. Eligibility first. Then the score.
  2. Five checks. Eight weighted criteria. 64 of 100: hold.
  3. Stronger against competitors: 71. Still hold.
  4. One licence missing: no bid, at 71.
  5. Confirmed: go, at 71.
  6. Evidence before optimism.

The demo: the worked example, one answer at a time

ExampleAn evaluation tender with one uncertain eligibility point. A score is a judgement on eight weighted lines, never a chance of winning.

Step 1 of 4

Verdict: HOLD

64 of 100. Hold.

11.25 + 5 + 7.5 + 11.25 + 5 + 11.25 + 5 + 7.5 = 63.75, which rounds to 64. 6 short of the GO line. Four gates open; Licences not sure. Close the gaps below before committing bid resources.

First evidence to find: List the likely bidders and our edge over each.

Yes: the gate stands open Not sure: ajar, and the verdict holds No: shut, and the run is in shade the level chosen on a plot the rounded total
  1. LegalWe are legally eligible to bid (entity, registration, nationality rules)
  2. MinimumsWe meet the minimum turnover and experience thresholds
  3. LicencesWe hold every mandatory certification or licence
  4. DeadlineWe can submit a compliant response by the deadline
  5. ConflictsWe have no conflict of interest

Now your opportunity, gate by gate.

Test an opportunity against the eligibility rules that cannot be negotiated, then score it on eight weighted criteria. A hard eligibility failure overrides any score, and the weakest criteria tell you what evidence to find before you commit.

Verdict: HOLD

64 of 100

6 short of GO

4 open, 1 not sure

LiveThe worked example’s answers. The verdict is the tool’s rule applied to them: not advice, and not a chance of winning.

Printed on the decision sheet. It does not change the result.

First

Hard eligibility

Any “No” means no bid, whatever the score.

It cannot confirm eligibility; only the tender documents and the buyer can.

Legal

We are legally eligible to bid (entity, registration, nationality rules)

Minimums

We meet the minimum turnover and experience thresholds

Licences

We hold every mandatory certification or licence

Unresolved: get written confirmation from the buyer or your adviser.

Deadline

We can submit a compliant response by the deadline

Conflicts

We have no conflict of interest

Then

Weighted criteria

Score each from 0 to 4: 0 No · 1 Weak · 2 Partly · 3 Mostly · 4 Strong.

Scores are your judgement; the value is in discussing them with evidence.

Fit

Fits our strategy and the work we want more of, weight 15

11.25 of 15

Client

We know the client and their real problem, weight 10

5 of 10

Competitors

We can beat the likely competitors, weight 15

7.5 of 15

Capability

We have the technical capability in-house or through partners, weight 15

11.25 of 15

Team

The right team is available for the dates, weight 10

5 of 10

Evidence

We can evidence similar past work, weight 15

11.25 of 15

Price

Our price can be competitive and still profitable, weight 10

5 of 10

Terms

Contract terms and risks are acceptable, weight 10

7.5 of 10

HOLD 50GO 7064 of 100

What to do before you decide

HOLD

Close the gaps below before committing bid resources.

64/100

Weighted bid score

GO at 70 or more, HOLD from 50 to 69, NO-GO below 50, unless eligibility fails.

Hard eligibility

  • Strength: We are legally eligible to bid (entity, registration, nationality rules)
  • Strength: We meet the minimum turnover and experience thresholds
  • Check: We hold every mandatory certification or licenceUnresolved: get written confirmation from the buyer or your adviser.
  • Strength: We can submit a compliant response by the deadline
  • Strength: We have no conflict of interest
Points by criterion (of its weight)
  1. Fits our strategy and the work we want more of11
  2. We know the client and their real problem5
  3. We can beat the likely competitors7.5
  4. We have the technical capability in-house or through partners11
  5. The right team is available for the dates5
  6. We can evidence similar past work11
  7. Our price can be competitive and still profitable5
  8. Contract terms and risks are acceptable7.5

Evidence to find before you decide

  1. 01
    List the likely bidders and our edge over each.We can beat the likely competitors · scored 2 of 4
  2. 02
    Find someone who has worked with this client; ask what went wrong last time.We know the client and their real problem · scored 2 of 4
  3. 03
    Check availability of each key expert for the whole period.The right team is available for the dates · scored 2 of 4

Decision sheet: Mid-term evaluation of a youth skills programme

Recommendation

HOLD. Close the gaps below before committing bid resources.

Deadline

30 Oct 2026.

Decision owner

To be recorded at the bid meeting, with the date of the decision.

Points by criterion weight × score ÷ 4, exact
CriterionScorePoints
FitFits our strategy and the work we want more of3 of 4Mostly11.25of 15
ClientWe know the client and their real problem2 of 4Partly5of 10
CompetitorsWe can beat the likely competitors2 of 4Partly7.5of 15
CapabilityWe have the technical capability in-house or through partners3 of 4Mostly11.25of 15
TeamThe right team is available for the dates2 of 4Partly5of 10
EvidenceWe can evidence similar past work3 of 4Mostly11.25of 15
PriceOur price can be competitive and still profitable2 of 4Partly5of 10
TermsContract terms and risks are acceptable3 of 4Mostly7.5of 10
Total63.75 of 100, which rounds to 64
Your full reportGo / hold / no-go discussion sheetTry this form

Practice 06: Bids, proposals & intelligenceFree · instant results on this pageTool owner: Prof. Wisdom Gagakuma and Kenneth GagakumaVersion 1.0 ·

GKM Strategic Advisory & AI

Decision sheet: Mid-term evaluation of a youth skills programme

Your organisation

HOLD64 of 100

Recommendation
HOLD. Close the gaps below before committing bid resources.
Deadline
30 Oct 2026.
Decision owner
To be recorded at the bid meeting, with the date of the decision.
The decision sheet as it stands on this page. It lists evidence to find, not evidence found: the tool holds no evidence. No file is produced today.

Your full report

Go / hold / no-go discussion sheet, by email once delivery is connected.

Go / hold / no-go discussion sheet (PDF) with the evidence behind each score

Preview only. No email will be sent. Your results are available above.

Nothing you enter here is sent anywhere. Privacy notice

· a free brief, or book the Professor · from USD 150
Close on the passage floor just past one half-turned glass door: its brushed-silver frame and floor pivot, inlaid metal bands of different widths crossing the polished stone, and one soft ruby reflection lying across them.
Past the gate, the floor is measured in bands, some wider than others.

How it decides, and its limits.

The rule is published so you can check it. The weights are the tool’s own and are fixed.

Method

  1. 01

    Hard eligibility checks come first: any “No” is an automatic NO-GO; any “Not sure” caps the result at HOLD.

  2. 02

    Each criterion scores 0 to 4 and earns its weight × score ÷ 4. Weights total 100.

  3. 03

    GO at 70 or more, HOLD from 50 to 69, NO-GO below 50.

What it cannot tell you

  • Scores are your judgement; the value is in discussing them with evidence.
  • It cannot confirm eligibility; only the tender documents and the buyer can.
  • Weights are standard; some bids deserve different ones.

Quality ruleHard eligibility failures override weighted scores.

The same passage seen from the end room, looking back: the glass doors stand open and daylight runs the length of the floor to the sea. The ruby lamp hangs close at the top edge.

When the decision needs a second reader.

  • Prof. Wisdom GagakumaTool owner · consultations from USD 150Book the Professor
  • Kenneth GagakumaTool owner · consultations from USD 90Book Kenneth

Tell us what you needNo charge to submit an enquiry.

Opportunity intelligence desk: funding & tender alerts, bid/no-bid verdictsService · 06 Bids, proposals & intelligenceTender, RFP & bid writingService · 06 Bids, proposals & intelligence Build a bid/no-bid decision from evidence rather than optimismGuide 06 Bids, proposals & intelligencePractice RFP compliance matrix builderFree toolTheory of change templateFree toolCapability-statement plannerFree toolPublic opportunity finderFree tool