The 0–100 match score
Every government contract in your monitored market receives a score of 0 to 100 against your specific capability profile. The score answers a single question: given what this business actually does, how winnable is this specific contract?
It is not a keyword frequency counter. It is not a business category code (NAICS) match alone. It is a multi-dimensional assessment that weighs your products and services, your certifications and registrations, your contract history, and your financial capacity against what the contracting authority is specifically seeking — across all markets globally, from SAM.gov to the World Bank to TED Europa to India GeM.
Research from the Frontiers in Sustainability peer review confirms that AI evaluation systems applying "consistent weighting to predefined criteria" produce measurably better matching outcomes than systems relying on keyword search or manual filtering alone.1
"If successfully adopted in the field, AI's potential in public procurement includes… the creation of smart bidding platforms that automatically match procurement needs with the most appropriate bidders."
— OECD (2025),
Governing with Artificial Intelligence: AI in Public Procurement, Chapter on AI in Procurement Applications.
Read full report ↗
70–100
HIGH MATCH
Strong match across all five dimensions. Your capability profile aligns well with what the contracting authority is buying, your size and eligibility signals are appropriate, the contract value is within your realistic capacity, and your past performance supports the bid. Every HIGH match receives a full 5-step action plan, a funding pathway assessment, and a direct link to the notice on the source portal. These are the contracts to act on first.
→ Full action plan delivered
40–69
WATCH
Partial match — strong in some scoring dimensions but with gaps in others. You may be eligible but lacking one specific certification, or the capability fit is solid but the contract value sits above your typical range. WATCH matches reach your report as secondary items, so you can review them when pipeline is thin or when one step would close the gap.
→ Included as secondary priority
0–39
LOW
Weak match. The contract exists in your monitored market and overlapping category, but does not align well with your specific business profile across the dimensions that determine realistic win probability. LOW matches are filtered out before your report is generated. Your inbox stays signal only — not noise that costs you four hours every Monday to filter manually.
→ Filtered before delivery
Why LOW matches never reach you
Most procurement tools send you everything and expect you to filter. BidClarity sends you only what you can win. HigherGov's research on federal procurement finds that the average government solicitation receives only 4.5 bids — meaning competition is far lower than most suppliers assume. The real barrier is not competition; it is knowing which specific contracts are actually worth entering. Eliminating LOW matches is how that intelligence is delivered.2
See how scores map to your plan and what each tier unlocks →
Why this approach works — peer-reviewed research foundation
OECD · 2025
Governing with Artificial Intelligence: AI in Public Procurement
The OECD identifies "smart bidding platforms that automatically match procurement needs with the most appropriate bidders" as a validated AI application — citing AI's potential for automated supplier evaluation and bid intelligence as a key advancement in public sector procurement.
Read the full OECD report ↗
Frontiers in Sustainability · 2025
Leveraging AI for Sustainable Public Procurement
Peer-reviewed research confirms AI-based bid evaluation systems enhance rigor by applying consistent, weighted criteria — reducing the subjective variation that disadvantages qualified smaller suppliers without established procurement relationships.
Read peer-reviewed paper ↗
Journal of Public Procurement · Emerald · 2025
Assessing the Value of AI in Governmental Public Procurement
Andersson, Arbin & Rosenqvist (Stockholm School of Economics) find that procurement agencies themselves operate at "a generally low level of AI maturity" — confirming the supplier-side intelligence gap that BidClarity addresses.
Read in Emerald Publishing ↗
Springer · ICSOB 2023
Artificial Intelligence Procurement Assistant: Enhancing Bid Evaluation
Waseem et al. demonstrate AI-based bid evaluation producing measurably more consistent matching outcomes than manual review across categories including IT, infrastructure, and professional services — directly informing BidClarity's multi-dimension scoring architecture.
Read in Springer ↗
The five scoring dimensions
Every contract is evaluated across five dimensions. At launch, dimensions are uniform-weighted as the initial calibration. Per-market weight matrices — adjusting for the eligibility-heavy nature of set-aside-prioritized markets, the past-performance-heavy nature of recompete-dominated markets, and the capacity-heavy nature of large-infrastructure markets — are in development against published procurement-outcome research from the OECD, OMB, World Bank, and EU corpora. See Per-market dimension weighting below for the calibration roadmap.
Research from Waseem et al. (Springer, 2023) demonstrates that multi-dimension AI evaluation — rather than single-factor keyword matching — produces the largest measurable improvement in bid-to-win conversion in procurement settings.3
Dimension 01 — Capability Match
Does what you sell match what they're buying?
How precisely does what you supply match what the contracting authority is buying? Assessed against your
NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes (US/Canada), CPV (Common Procurement Vocabulary) codes (EU), UNSPSC (UN Standard Products and Services Code) codes (UN/World Bank), product descriptions, service types, and named brands or equipment lines. A precise capability description — "Zebra barcode scanners, HP workstations, Cisco switches — NAICS 423430, 541512" — produces dramatically higher precision than "IT equipment and services." This dimension applies identically across all markets: SAM.gov, CanadaBuys, TED Europa, UNGM, AusTender, India GeM, and GeBIZ Singapore.
↑ Most impactful field in your profile
Dimension 02 — Eligibility & Certifications
Are you legally allowed to bid for this contract?
✅
Eligibility & certifications
Can your business legally bid for this contract in this jurisdiction? Assessed against your certifications and registrations:
SAM.gov (US federal), SBA set-aside status (8(a), WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB), Crown Commercial Service (UK), AusTender supplier registration (Australia), GeBIZ (Singapore), KONEPS (South Korea), India GeM, UNGM Tier 2 (UN agencies), EU eCertis cross-recognition, ISO certifications,
ProServices Canada and Indigenous Business Directory (Canada), and equivalent registrations in your operating markets.
↑ Unlocks set-aside categories globally
Dimension 03 — Financial Capacity
Can you afford to deliver if you win?
Can your business realistically deliver this contract? Assessed against your revenue range, self-finance window, and the financing pathways available to your jurisdiction and contract type. A $5M contract matched to a business with under $200K revenue produces a misleading result without this dimension. Financial capacity scoring weights the realistic delivery picture into the score itself, while applicable financing pathways — SBA (US), EDC and BDC (Canada), EXIM (US), EFIC (Australia), UK Export Finance, JBIC (Japan), KEXIM (Korea), multilateral development-bank financing (Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IDB, World Bank), milestone-based draws, advance payments, and supplier credit — are surfaced as informational metadata on every HIGH match, scoped to your jurisdiction and contract type. See
the global funding check for the full pathway table.
↑ Drives the financing pathway annotations
Dimension 04 — Contract Characteristics
Is this contract attractive in itself?
📋
Contract characteristics
Is this particular contract favourable to pursue on its own merits? Assessed against competition structure (open market vs set-aside vs sole source), contract type (fixed price, T&M (time-and-materials), IDIQ — open-ended contract vehicle, framework), geographic delivery requirements, and submission complexity relative to contract value. A well-structured contract with clear evaluation criteria scores higher than a technically matching contract whose terms or submission burden are unfavourable — independent of your win history (which is scored separately in Dimension 05).
↑ Filters low-ROI bid opportunities
Dimension 05 — Past Performance
What does your delivery track record tell the buyer?
How strong is your delivery track record on contracts similar to this one? Assessed against your agency-specific history, scope similarity to contracts you have already delivered, recency, and CPARS-equivalent quality (US federal CPARS ratings, Canadian PSPC vendor performance reports, World Bank rated criteria, EU TED evaluations). Read from your knowledge base via semantic retrieval against the notice's scope text — matching your stored past-performance narratives to the notice's specific work statement. Manually-entered references and uploaded contract documents both count, and Fulfill auto-drafts add to the same store at every contract close. Past performance is the dimension procurement research consistently identifies as the strongest predictor of award outcomes — OMB guidance recommends weighting it at ≥25% of total evaluation,9 consistent with CPARS and CLEATUS frameworks10,11 and with international parity in Procurement Sciences PWIN literature, EU Directive 2014/24/EU contract-award criteria, and World Bank Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers.12,13,14
↑ The substrate of the self-learning loop closed by Fulfill
Dimension 02 functions as a gate
Eligibility functions as a gate, not an additive contribution like the other four dimensions. A hard-fail — e.g., a small-business set-aside contract for which you are not registered, or a jurisdictional bar — collapses the overall score below the SKIP threshold regardless of how strongly the other four dimensions match. This is intentional: a contract you cannot legally enter has no practical value at any score, and surfacing it as a HIGH match would waste the time the engine exists to save.
Dimension 01 — three-tier vertical match
Same vertical (full credit): your NAICS, capability tags, and target markets substantively overlap with the notice's primary scope. Adjacent vertical (partial credit, lands in WATCH): you operate in a related-but-not-identical category — IT hardware vendor evaluating IT services; software integration vendor evaluating systems integration; commercial cleaning vendor evaluating janitorial services. Worth watching even if not a perfect fit. Cross vertical (low credit, lands in SKIP): your vertical is materially distinct from the notice scope — catering vendor evaluating IT services; medical staffing vendor evaluating construction. The three-tier judgment is what keeps adjacent-vertical opportunities visible without flooding the report with cross-vertical noise.
Per-market dimension weighting
The five dimensions sum into a 0–100 score. The weighting between them is currently uniform across all markets — each dimension contributes equally to the total. This is the launch calibration; it is intentionally simple and produces well-behaved tier classifications across the full evaluation set.
Per-market calibration — adjusting D2 (Eligibility) heavier in set-aside-prioritized markets (US small-business set-asides, Canadian Indigenous-business procurement, EU SME-prioritized frameworks), D5 (Past Performance) heavier in recompete-dominated markets per OMB ≥25% guidance and equivalent international procurement-evaluation standards, D3 (Financial Capacity) heavier in large-infrastructure markets (World Bank, AfDB, ADB, IDB, EU TED infrastructure tenders) — is in development against published procurement-outcome research and our own delivered-contract corpus. The empirical weight matrices and the markets they cover will be published here as they land.
What this means today
Your reports today reflect uniform weighting. A US small-business set-aside and a World Bank infrastructure tender are both scored against the same five dimensions with the same weight per dimension. Per-market weight matrices, when they ship, will refine the tier classifications without changing the dimension framework or the score range. Your historical scores will not be retroactively rewritten — calibration improvements apply forward from the date they ship.
How the global funding check works
Every HIGH match is annotated with the financing pathways that apply to its market and your profile. This is informational metadata on the contract — not a tier-affecting score. The pathways inform Dimension 03 (financial capacity) qualitatively, but do not gate the tier. The point is to answer one practical question before you invest time in a proposal: can you finance delivery of this contract, and if so, through which programme?
Government contracts worldwide typically pay net-30 to net-90 days after milestone completion. For a $500K contract, that means potentially funding $500K in costs before receiving payment. Discovering this constraint after 40 hours of proposal work is one of the most common reasons qualified suppliers withdraw from contracts they could have won. BidClarity surfaces the applicable financing pathway before you open the tender document.
Find your row by market. The programme that applies depends on where the contract is issued and where your business is registered. If you operate across multiple regions, multiple rows may apply — check each one that matches your situation.
| Flag |
Programme |
Market |
What it means for your bid |
| SBA ✓ |
Small Business Administration (US) |
United States |
Set-aside designation applies and/or SBA-backed working capital or surety bond programme is applicable. Compete against a small pool — not the open market. |
| EDC ✓ |
Export Development Canada |
Canada (international contracts) |
Account Performance Security Guarantee (APSG) for bid/performance bonds, or Export Guarantee Program (EGP) for working capital are likely applicable. EDC works alongside your commercial bank. |
| BDC ✓ |
Business Development Bank of Canada |
Canada (domestic contracts) |
BDC working capital or term financing is applicable for Canadian domestic contract execution. Particularly relevant for product supply contracts with 60+ day payment terms. |
| EXIM ✓ |
Export-Import Bank of the United States |
US businesses, international contracts |
EXIM Working Capital Guarantee or medium-term guarantee is applicable. Allows US businesses to bid on international contracts without tying up full cash reserves. |
| EFIC ✓ |
Export Finance Australia |
Australia (international contracts) |
EFIC direct lending or guarantee applicable for Australian exporters bidding on international procurement. |
| EIF ✓ |
European Investment Fund / national equivalents |
European Union |
EU/EIF-backed SME financing programmes applicable, accessed through national guarantee schemes in member states. |
| PO Finance ✓ |
Purchase Order Financing |
All markets |
A signed government PO from a creditworthy contracting authority serves as collateral for third-party advance. Particularly strong for goods/equipment contracts at any contract value. |
| N/A |
No specific programme flagged |
All markets |
Contract may be self-fundable at your revenue range, or it is a services contract where PO financing does not apply. Does not indicate a problem — may simply mean no external financing is needed. |
Funding flag = signal, not approval
BidClarity's funding flag indicates a financing pathway is likely applicable based on your profile and contract characteristics. It is not a pre-approval or lender introduction. You should verify eligibility and initiate any financing application directly with the relevant institution before relying on it for a bid decision. BidClarity is a procurement intelligence platform, not a lender or financial advisor.
Inside the 5-step action plan
Every HIGH match includes a 5-step action plan generated specifically for that contract against your profile. It is not a generic checklist copied across all reports. It is generated fresh for each match — using the contract's specific requirements, your profile's specific characteristics, the market's specific compliance requirements, and the timeline available from the closing date.
Research from the Journal of Public Procurement (Andersson, Arbin & Rosenqvist, 2025) identifies structured AI-generated guidance as the primary mechanism for closing the gap between supplier capability and actual bid submission — the step where most SMEs drop out of the procurement process.4
1
Locate, download, and assess
Where the solicitation document lives (direct link to the source portal, no login required where possible), which section to open first (evaluation criteria before scope of work), and what to scan in the first 10 minutes to confirm whether pursuing is worthwhile. For contracts with Sources Sought notices (pre-solicitation market research requests) or RFI (Request for Information) stages, this step includes whether to respond and what to say.
2
Confirm eligibility and close any gaps
Specific registrations required (SAM.gov, CanadaBuys SRI, UNGM Tier 2, etc.), certifications that unlock set-aside or preferential evaluation, and — where a gap exists — how to close it quickly. If teaming with one partner would close an eligibility gap, the plan identifies what type of partner to look for and where to source them in your market.
3
Assess financing and confirm capacity
Based on the contract value and your revenue range, whether you can self-fund delivery, which specific financing programme to explore, and the right timing to start. EDC and EXIM applications take 3–6 weeks — you need to initiate before you commit to the bid, not after you win. The plan identifies the specific institution and the most applicable product to request.
4
Prepare and submit
The evaluation criteria the buyer will weight most heavily, what to prioritise in your proposal, and every key deadline: questions-due date, draft review if applicable, and final submission. Submission platform and required format. The specific section or attachment where your classification codes, past performance, and certifications must appear to be assessed.
5
Follow up and learn
How to contact the contracting officer (CO) after submission — what is appropriate to ask without risking disqualification. If awarded: next steps and typical timeline to contract execution. If not awarded: how to request a debrief, what information to ask for, and how to use what you learn to improve your next submission on a similar contract in the same category.
What happens after you win — and how it sharpens future scoring
Scoring gets you to a submitted bid. Winning, delivering, and capturing the delivered work as past performance is a different problem — and the place where every other procurement-intelligence platform stops. BidClarity continues through delivery via BidClarity Fulfill, and Fulfill is designed to feed delivered-contract narratives back into your scoring profile.
The feedback loop — Find → Win → Deliver → Win Again
Every delivered contract is designed to make your next scoring cycle sharper.
When you win a contract, BidClarity Fulfill tracks the contract deliverables (CDRLs) — the reports and products you owe the agency under the contract, locates the geographically closest qualified suppliers with market price benchmarks, drafts supplier outreach, tracks invoicing, and — critically for scoring — auto-drafts the past-performance narrative from the delivered work for storage in your knowledge base.
That narrative is the direct input to Dimension 05 (Past Performance) on the next scoring cycle — the engine reads it via semantic retrieval and credits the agency-specific history, scope similarity, and CPARS-equivalent rating into the D5 score. Dimension 01 (Capability Match) also sharpens because the engine now knows exactly what you have delivered, to which agency, and against what evaluation criteria — not just what you listed in your profile.
Status — honest framing: the Fulfill-to-D5 wiring is in active development as part of the M-2 release. Until it ships, D5 reads from manually-entered past-performance references and uploaded contract documents in your knowledge base. The structural pieces — the D5 dimension itself, the knowledge-base retrieval path, the past-performance auto-draft logic — are in place; the cross-module wiring that closes the loop end-to-end is the remaining work.
Find
Intelligence scoring
Win Again
D5 reads CPARS narratives from KB
Why your profile specificity changes everything
The score is only as accurate as the profile it is scored against. This is not a disclaimer — it is a mechanism that produces measurable results. A capability description of "IT services and consulting" generates a large volume of WATCH-range scores because the system cannot determine whether specific contracts are genuinely relevant to your business. A description of "Supply and installation of Cisco network switches, HP workstations, and Zebra barcode scanners to government facilities — NAICS 423430, 541512 — previous clients include US Army Corps of Engineers and Singapore Ministry of Finance" allows the engine to distinguish between a server rack procurement (strong match) and a software development RFP (weak match, filtered out).
Subscribers who include three NAICS codes, at least one specific product line or service type, and one relevant certification consistently receive more HIGH matches than subscribers with broad descriptions of equal length. The profile update at bidclarity.ai/profile-update takes under five minutes. Fulfill subscribers also carry delivered contracts into the profile automatically — every closeout strengthens the next scoring cycle without manual re-entry.
Pre-RFP radar — the 6–18 month early window
Available on the Command plan, Pre-RFP radar (early contract intelligence — Pre-RFP) monitors a different data layer than the standard matching engine. Rather than active solicitations, it monitors government contract award databases — published records of contracts already awarded, including their values, expiry dates, and the incumbents holding them — across all markets where this data is publicly accessible.
GovWinRate's analysis of 23M+ federal contract awards confirms the mechanism: challengers who position before recompete win at 38% versus 12% on cold bids — a 3× differential explained by relationship-building time, incumbent complacency, and early specification influence.5 Pre-RFP radar is BidClarity's mechanism for delivering that positioning window.
For each approaching recompete matched to your profile, the radar delivers: the incumbent holder and how long they have held the contract, a vulnerability signal based on public modification history and contract structure, a readiness plan with specific milestone dates, and a funding assessment at the contract's historical value. US federal coverage is live. Additional markets are added as award database APIs become publicly available.
Data freshness, source health, and deduplication
The intelligence in your report is only as reliable as the data pipeline behind it. Three operational details matter for serious buyers evaluating BidClarity against manual monitoring.
Scan frequency
Major portals — SAM.gov, CanadaBuys, TED Europa, UNGM, AusTender, India GeM, and GeBIZ — are scanned every 24 hours via their public APIs. Regional sources (provincial and state-level portals) are scanned every 48–72 hours depending on the source's update cadence. BidClarity does not queue batch scans for a single weekly sweep — the engine runs continuously, and your report assembles from the most current available data at the time of generation.
Source health monitoring
Every portal in the coverage list has a health monitor running alongside the primary scraper. When a portal returns errors, changes its schema, or goes offline, the health monitor flags that source within the same scan cycle. Affected portals are automatically excluded from that report cycle — you will not receive a report that presents data from a broken source as if it were complete. When the portal recovers, a catch-up scan runs and any missed opportunities within your match window are surfaced in the following report.
Deduplication
The same contract opportunity can appear on multiple portals simultaneously. A UN contract may appear on both UNGM and a national portal. A Canadian federal contract may appear on both CanadaBuys and MERX. Before scoring runs, BidClarity deduplicates all opportunities by matching on contract reference number, issuing authority, and notice type. You receive one scored entry per unique opportunity regardless of how many sources carried it. For Command plan subscribers monitoring 37+ sources in a single report, this deduplication pass runs across all sources before any scoring begins.
What this means for your report quality
A weekly BidClarity report reflects 24–72 hours of source freshness, not seven days of accumulated lag. Deduplication means your HIGH match list contains distinct opportunities, not the same contract listed three times from different portals. Source health monitoring means a portal outage produces a gap notice — not a report that quietly omits a market without telling you.
🔒 What we protect and why
The exact weighting formula applied within each dimension, the calibration adjustments made per market and contract type, the supplier-matching logic inside Fulfill, and the validation logic that flags low-confidence outputs before they reach your report are proprietary. We do not publish them because doing so would allow competitors to reverse-engineer the intelligence engine. What this page describes — the five dimensions, the gate semantics, the threshold definitions, the global funding check, the action plan structure, the post-award feedback loop, and the pre-RFP methodology — is accurate and complete at the level of detail that matters for evaluating whether BidClarity's intelligence is trustworthy. For specific questions not answered here, contact our team.
Sources cited on this page
1. Siciliani et al. (2023), as cited in:
Leveraging AI for Sustainable Public Procurement, Frontiers in Sustainability, 2025.
frontiersin.org ↗
2. HigherGov Analysis of Federal Procurement Trends, 2022/2023. "The average government solicitation receives only 4.5 bids and approximately 40% of all competitive solicitations receive fewer than three qualified bids."
highergov.com ↗
3. Waseem, M. et al. (2024).
Artificial Intelligence Procurement Assistant: Enhancing Bid Evaluation. In: Software Business (ICSOB 2023). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 500. Springer.
link.springer.com ↗
4. Andersson, P.E., Arbin, K. & Rosenqvist, C. (2025).
Assessing the value of artificial intelligence (AI) in governmental public procurement. Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 25(1), pp. 120–139. Emerald Publishing.
emerald.com ↗
5. GovWinRate.
How to Win Government Contracts: Data from 23M+ Federal Awards. "The difference between a 12% win rate and a 38% win rate is not better writing or cheaper pricing. It is better targeting."
govwinrate.com ↗
6. OECD (2025).
Governing with Artificial Intelligence: AI in Public Procurement. AI's potential includes "the creation of smart bidding platforms that automatically match procurement needs with the most appropriate bidders (Shark, 2024)."
oecd.org ↗
7. World Bank Enterprise Surveys, as cited in:
Public Procurement Statistics 2025. "Firms' participation rate in public procurement is 18%, ranging from 12% in South Asia to 22% in Sub-Saharan Africa."
procurementtactics.com ↗
8. GovCon Giants (2026).
Federal Market Research Guide. "Data-driven capture is the difference between a 10% win rate and a 40% win rate."
govcongiants.org ↗
9. Office of Management and Budget / Federal Acquisition Regulation.
FAR 15.305 — Proposal Evaluation: Past Performance Evaluation. Past-performance evaluation guidance for negotiated procurements; widely operationalised at ≥25% of total source-selection evaluation weight.
acquisition.gov ↗
10. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).
CPARS — federal past-performance evaluation rating framework, US Department of Defense / GSA. Establishes the federal past-performance rating standard subsequently referenced as the CPARS framework across negotiated procurements.
cpars.gov ↗
11. Contractor Logistics Enterprise Architecture for Tracking and User Support (CLEATUS).
CLEATUS provides the federal contractor logistics and past-performance data infrastructure layer underlying CPARS reporting and source-selection use.
dla.mil ↗
12. Procurement Sciences (2024).
The Probability-of-Win (PWIN) Model in Federal Capture Management. Past-performance signal is identified as the single largest predictor of PWIN delta in capture-stage modelling across federal contract pursuits.
procurementsciences.com ↗
13. European Commission.
Directive 2014/24/EU on Public Procurement, Article 67 (Contract Award Criteria). EU procurement framework establishing past-performance evaluation as a permitted award criterion across member-state contracting authorities.
eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
14. World Bank.
Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers — Rated Criteria Methodology (July 2016, updated 2024). World Bank-funded procurement framework establishing supplier-evaluation criteria including past-performance scoring for international competitive bidding.
worldbank.org ↗
See your first scored report — 14-day trial
Your profile takes 10 minutes. The first scored report is in your inbox within 15 minutes. Card saved at signup — not charged for 14 days. Two full reports included in the trial period — the same intelligence your paid subscribers receive every cycle, across every government market you monitor.
See which contracts I can win →
37+ portals · First report in minutes · Card required, not charged 14 days · Cancel anytime
Research-grounded scoring methodology
Peer-reviewed academic foundation
Global coverage — US, CA, UK, AU, EU, UN, World Bank
Post-award delivery via Fulfill
Secured by Stripe · TLS encryption