The AI agent for architects: draft the tender documents, support compliance

Nine bids across seven lots. Completeness first, comparison second, ranking never.
Completeness: seven bids are complete. Two are not — one has no technical statement, the other no ten-year insurance certificate for its lot. These are formal gaps, and the tender rules say what happens to them; I do not decide that.
Comparison against the stated criteria — price 40%, technical value 40%, programme 20%: the table is attached, with each bid's score on each sub-criterion and the sentence from the statement that justifies each score.
Two things that deserve your eye: the lowest bid on lot 2 is 31% below the estimate, and its statement addresses none of the three method points the rules require; and two bids on lot 5 carry identical unit prices, to the euro, on eleven items. bid-analysis_school-complex.pdf9 bids · 7 lots · scores justified
⛓ Source · tender rules, bids received, estimate

The weighting is mechanical. The ranking is not, which is why I stop short of it.
Three things remain to be decided, and none of them is a calculation:
· The two incomplete bids — exclude them, or ask them to put things right where the rules allow. That choice bears on fairness between bidders.
· The bid at −31% — an abnormally low bid is not excluded because it is low, but after the bidder has been given the chance to justify it. Only the client can make that request.
· The eleven identical prices on lot 5 — this could be one subcontractor pricing for two firms. It could be something else. I record the coincidence, I do not name it: the word that comes to mind is an accusation, and I will not level it off a price table.

The analysis report is ready for the committee, with these three questions at the front rather than in an appendix. The client awards the contract — the practice informs that decision, it does not take it.
✎ Support · report ready — the award belongs to the client

No. I do not fill a statutory notice with figures nobody has established.
The reason is not procedural. A default value stops being an assumption the moment it is filed: it becomes a figure declared by the design team, under its responsibility, and "we will adjust later" assumes somebody remembers what needs adjusting.
Eleven figures are missing, and they are not equivalent:
· Four are in the file and had simply not been carried across. I have carried them across, each with the document it comes from.
· Five depend on the thermal study, which has not been delivered. No value can stand in for them.
· Two turn on a design choice that has not been settled. That is not a missing figure, it is a decision.
The notice is three-quarters complete, and the seven remaining boxes state what is missing and who holds it. environmental-notice_7-missing-figures.pdf11 figures · origin of each
⛓ Source · project file · 4 figures recovered, 7 flagged

That may be so, and it is not something I can verify. What I can verify is what happens if a filed figure turns out to be wrong.
Two of the five missing figures bear on items that drive the result of the study: filling them at random does not produce an approximate notice, it produces a notice whose conclusion no longer relates to the building.
What I can do instead, and have done: the thermal engineer has been chased twice, with no reply. I have prepared the formal request, with the order date, the two chases and the filing deadline now approaching — a document that protects you if the delay is later argued about.
And a proposal, if you approve it: this kind of awaited document can track itself. Order, stated deadline, chase at 15 days then at 5, flagged to the project leader, and beyond the deadline, to the partner — with the summary given by project.
Nothing would be filed, signed or completed by me. The tracking counts the days; it fills no box. formal-request_thermal-engineer.pdfOrder + 2 chases · filing deadline
✎ Action · formal request ready — filing stays with the practice

All three draft statutory notices are written from project data alone, and they are waiting for your approval.
· Environmental regulation notice — 14 pages, 47 figures carried over from the file; the 5 missing ones are named, with who holds them and the date they are expected. None is filled in for them.
· Accessibility — 9 pages. The 22 points your file allows to be established are drafted: clear widths, gradients, turning circles, accessible WC, parking. Three points come out of the drawings themselves and call for a design decision: a ramp measured at 5.8% on the site plan, an external route at 1.20 m over 4 metres, and an accessible WC whose turning circle is blocked by the door swing. All three are located, dimensioned, and traced to the drawing and revision that carry them.
· Fire safety — 11 pages: building classification, occupancy per floor, escape routes, smoke control, firefighting provision. One point cannot be closed from the office: the distance to the nearest fire hydrant is verified on site or with the relevant service. The request is written and waiting to be sent.
A figure I publish about myself: across the last three projects my draft notices came back with 9 corrections on average — 6 concerned design decisions that are not mine to take, but 3 were transcription errors, all in the fire safety notice. The way it is built has changed: every occupancy figure and every escape route now carries the drawing and revision it comes from. On this project, rework fell to 1 correction across the three notices. You read them, you correct them, and it is your signature that files them.
⛓ Sourced · drawings, area schedule, specification, drawing revisions

The school complex deadline closed at noon, and a ninth bid arrived at 12:04 — it has been neither set aside nor accepted.
The facts, and every one is timestamped: eight bids filed before noon. A ninth at 12:04. The platform's publisher issued at 12:11 a notice of unavailability from 11:52 to 12:03, and the platform log shows three upload attempts by that bidder during the outage.
The rule to apply here has not yet been defined: the tender rules set the deadline and say nothing about a documented platform outage. So I have settled nothing — and the factual file is complete: timestamps, publisher's notice, log of attempts, filing time of the other eight.
Three ways forward, and all three are put to the client. Propose setting the ninth bid aside: that is the strict reading of the deadline, and it excludes a bidder whose log shows attempts to file before noon. Propose accepting it: the bidder is not responsible for the outage, and the other eight may challenge equal treatment — one of them filed at 11:49, three minutes before the outage. Propose reopening filing for two hours for all nine bidders, bids already filed staying sealed: the outage is dealt with for everyone rather than its effect on one, at the cost of a two-hour shift and a corrigendum to issue.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that deprives nobody: the eight bids filed stay sealed and untouched, and the outage stops being an event that singles out one bidder.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: the ninth bid is accepted and the corrigendum carries the publisher's notice as an annex, so that every bidder holds the same fact.
Shall I remember it for the next tenders? Across your 34 tenders over the last two years, 3 saw a platform incident in the hour before the deadline. If you approve this course of action, I will build the file that way from the moment of the incident, and I will tell you each time how many bidders were mid-upload.
⛓ Source · deadline of 11/08 at noon, publisher's notice of unavailability, platform log, tender rules, 34 tenders over two years

Written exactly as you just said it, and it carries your correction.
The course of action, in one sentence: a documented platform outage in the hour before the deadline gives rise to a proposal to postpone by two hours for all bidders; bids already filed stay sealed; the corrigendum carries the publisher's notice and the log of attempts as exhibits; and the decision belongs to the client.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a notice of unavailability lives on the publisher's portal, and it does not live there long. Attached to the corrigendum, it becomes a tender document — dated, issued to everyone, and findable where it will be looked for: in the file.
What it changes this afternoon: the proposal went to the client at 12:31 with the four exhibits, the draft corrigendum is written, and the eight bids have not been opened.
What lets you undo it: the course of action is written into your tender rules under its own name, with its date, the project manager who approved it and the incident that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and these incidents go back to being handled case by case.
✎ Course approved · tender rules, entry “platform unavailable before the deadline”, approved on 11/08 by the project manager

I have gone back over them, and they resemble each other more than one would think.
What I looked at: the 34 tenders of the last two years, the 3 platform incidents that occurred in the hour before the deadline, and the filing time of every bid.
What comes out of it: in all three cases, between 4 and 7 bidders were mid-upload when the outage struck. And across all 34 tenders, 61% of bids arrive in the last two hours — an outage at noon never touches one isolated bidder.
What the three cost: 19 hours of practice time in all — factual files, exchanges with the client, corrigenda — and in one case the deadline was pushed back by 12 days for want of a written course of action, while the question was settled.
What I propose, and it is one paragraph to have approved once: that the tender rules themselves carry a postponement clause for documented platform unavailability — duration, exhibits to attach, issue to all. I have drafted it from the three incidents; it is approved by the client once, and then serves every tender.
What it is worth: today's incident took 6 hours and will take as much every time as long as the clause does not exist. With it, the postponement is decided in twenty minutes and the tender timetable is no longer open to argument.
The decision is yours: the tender rules belong to the client, and I write nothing into them before they have approved it.
✎ Proposal · 34 tenders over two years, 3 platform incidents, 4 to 7 bidders mid-upload each time, 61% of bids in the last two hours, 19 hours of practice time — the tender rules belong to the client

Three details match, across three projects. I give them in the order I would use them, and the reason for that order matters more than the list.
· Mareuil secondary school (2021) — closest to what you need, handed over with no snags on that lot.
· Aubel hall (2019) — similar geometry, but a different substrate.
· Verne library (2022) — this detail was the subject of a snag at handover, cleared in 2023 after rework. The rework changed the upstand.
The third is the most instructive, and it is the one a keyword search would have surfaced first, because it is the most recent. Reusing it as drawn means reusing what had to be redone.
All three sheets are attached, each with its handover minutes.
And one more entry in your base, since the course of action you approved on platform incidents: the publisher's notice of unavailability and the log of attempts are filed in the school complex tender, together with the corrigendum — the very document nobody would have found in six months, and it is now attached to its incident. parapet-details_3-projects.pdf3 sheets · minutes and snags
⛓ Source · construction files + handover minutes of 3 projects

The height of the upstand at the terrace access threshold, judged insufficient by the technical inspector. The rework brought it to the prescribed height, and the amended construction detail is in the as-built file.
What has to be looked at to transpose it, and I have already set it side by side: the substrate, the exposure and the room classification — all three differ between the original project and yours, and the six values sit on one line, each pointing back to the document it comes from. I surface the precedent and the difference; the technical judgement is yours, and it is made on one page instead of two files.

An observation that goes beyond your question: that snag is linked to this detail nowhere in your base. I found it by putting the minutes and the sheet side by side, because I read both. A colleague looking for this detail in your files will see only the sheet.
What I can do, on your approval: at every snag clearance, attach the snag to the detail concerned and mark the original sheet. No sheet would be withdrawn or corrected — it would be marked, which is a different thing: a deleted sheet leaves a hole, a marked sheet says why it changed.
✎ Proposal · snags attached — the sheet stays intact