Compare bids with objective methods
Transparence analyzes the bids you import and scores them against your criteria, in strict compliance with your award method. The comparison matrix it produces lets you make informed decisions faster.
How do you choose the right supplier?
Comparing bids in a spreadsheet, or with a tool that was not expressly designed for the Quebec public sector, is a long, complex exercise riddled with error risks. Transparence lets you speed up and strengthen the selection process by evaluating bids objectively, against your own criteria, while making decisions traceable.
- Verify that every requirement in the call for tenders gets an answer
- Compare the qualitative and the financial according to your award method
- Detect undue advantages and apparent conflicts of interest
| Criterion | Suppl. A | Suppl. B | Suppl. C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Response to requirements | ok ? | — | good |
| Technical soundness | 7/10 | ? | — |
| Schedule and price | $$ | cheapest | $$$ |
| Total | to calculate | to calculate | to calculate |
Toward an informed decision in four stages
You import
Drop in the suppliers' responses and specify your award method.
The AI analyzes
Every response is checked against the call for tenders on technical and financial elements as well as those specific to your needs.
The AI compares and scores
A matrix assigns a score per criterion, drawing for instance on grey areas, risks and needs.
The committee decides
Each member evaluates, adds relevant elements, declares their interests and awards. The decision is traced.
You have questions? We have the answers
Here you will find the questions that come up most often about comparing bids in Transparence. If yours is not covered in this section, do not hesitate to contact us directly.
Yes, it is even the starting point of the analysis. You indicate your award method and Transparence adapts its comparison matrix to the rules that apply: lowest compliant bidder, qualitative evaluation, or two-envelope system.
For example, the platform will never blend the qualitative and the financial if your method forbids it. In short, the comparison you get complies with the framework you are required to follow.
The AI assigns a score per criterion based on the requirements of your call for tenders (step 1) and the weighting you set. You get an overall score out of 100 for each supplier, along with the detail that justifies it.
The scoring is fully adjustable, in keeping with our digital philosophy, which holds that humans must remain in charge of their judgment and their decisions. If your reading differs from the AI's on a criterion, you correct the score and the trace records who changed what. The scoring system can be configured to take your reasoning into account next time, where applicable.
Never. Here too, our digital philosophy applies: humans must remain in charge of their decisions and accountable. The highest score is only a starting point. The final award decision belongs to the selection committee.
If the committee selects a supplier with a lower score than another, that is its right: the justification is simply recorded so the decision is defensible rather than contestable.
Transparence cross-references bids with your contract history (when available) and certain signals present in the responses. For example, it can point out that an incumbent supplier holds an advantage over the others, that contracts are abnormally concentrated with a single supplier, or even that there may be an appearance of collusion.
At evaluation time, each committee member declares their own interests. These declarations are recorded in the registry, just like the scores.
The platform compares each bid to the call for tenders point by point. When a requirement goes unanswered or gets a vague answer, for example "we will deliver a solution as soon as possible", it is simply flagged as such.
You can thus distinguish at a glance the precise, committed bids from the evasive ones, without rereading every document in full. The bidder may or may not be asked to clarify its answer, depending on how you operate.
Absolutely. Each member's evaluation grids, the conflict of interest declarations and the final decision feed automatically generated minutes, which means there is no longer any need to reconstruct them after the fact.
Indeed, every action taken during the evaluation is recorded in a timestamped, cryptographically signed audit log that is tamper-proof and exportable, on a blockchain with post-quantum encryption. In short, the day an auditor asks "why this supplier?", the "because" is already rigorously documented.
The contract is built from the winning bid and your call for tenders, without re-entering anything. The commitments made by the supplier become the clauses and validation criteria that will be made official at the next step.
That is the strength of the Transparence cycle: what was promised at evaluation becomes what will be verified during execution.
A solid decision, easy to defend and one that furthers the success of your projects
Bid evaluation is the moment public money is actually committed. It is also the one most often called into question, months later, when the chosen option has to be justified. Transparence ensures, and proves, that the key players followed a responsible process.
For the selection committee
- Award decision backed by a structured comparison rather than an impression
- Conflicts of interest declared and recorded before the vote
- Minutes and evaluation grids produced automatically
- Freedom to select a supplier other than the highest score, with the justification on record
For the Auditor General
- A complete trace of who decided what, when, and with what authority
- Scores, sources and declarations anchored in a tamper-proof registry
- Upstream detection of undue advantages and apparent collusion
- An exportable file, ready for review
One hour is enough to compare real bids on one of your past calls for tenders
Rather than a generic demonstration, we can take a call for tenders that has already been awarded and show you concretely the comparison matrix the platform would have produced, in complete confidentiality.