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 that does not flatter me: 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

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. 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