HUGDRIGO / PROCUREMENT LABS / PROJECT 55
LOCAL · NO API KEYS
Project 55 · Decision research studio

Procurement clarity. Defensible decisions.

Evaluate supplier bids with transparent weighted scoring, hard compliance gates, stress testing and reproducible evidence. Synthetic demonstrations are not real tenders.

100% LOCALIndependent · Transparent

Decision ranking

EXPLICIT WEIGHTS

Only compliant suppliers can be recommended. Scores are min-max normalized across the full bid set.

Ranked score profile

0–100 POINTS

Higher means better under the current stakeholder priorities.

Decision interpretation

Explicitly separates selection criteria from compliance.

Compliance snapshot

Reasons are reported for each rejection, not hidden inside the score.

Bid comparison

Inspect every proposal, including excluded ones. Select any row for its individual scoring drivers, modeled costs and compliance issues.

All submitted bids

SYNTHETIC

Selected supplier

Performance indicators and normalized contributions

Selection transparency

How the selected bid is assessed

Scoring & compliance

Edit criterion importance and mandatory constraints. Weight sliders are normalized automatically to 100% in the final score. A high score never overrides an exclusion rule.

Stakeholder priorities

AUTO NORMALIZED

Move sliders to immediately recalculate the ranking.

The colored percentages shown are effective normalized weights. Raw sliders can have any total above zero.

Mandatory requirements

Bids failing any active rule cannot be recommended.

Robustness laboratory

Simulate alternative stakeholder priorities around your base weights. A first-place frequency is not a probability of future contract success.

±35% multiplier

First-place frequency

500 DRAWS · SEEDED

Only eligible bids participate. Each run samples a new set of weights and applies it to all bids.

Robustness interpretation

What the weight uncertainty does and does not show

Contract scenario planner

Build illustrative cost exposure scenarios. Risk scores are ordinal indicators, not calibrated loss probabilities. Results do not change the main decision ranking.

Contract stress assumptions

Adjust these factors to compare modeled expenditure by bidder.

Interpretation guardrail: This is a user-defined exposure proxy, not an estimated loss probability, legal procurement valuation or predictive financial forecast.

Stress comparison

Base bid value versus modeled stress cost

Scenario cost details

Only international bids receive the import uplift. Disruption extension increases with the risk indicator.

Data & reproducibility

Upload your own bids or download reusable templates. All data stays in this browser. Files are not transmitted to our servers.

Import supplier bids

RFC-style CSV with quoted commas and newlines. Requires all columns shown in the template. Supports 2–60 bids and a 1 MB file limit.

⇪

Choose a CSV file containing supplier bids

Current dataset: built-in synthetic demonstration. Import a file to replace the working dataset in this tab.

Export auditable outputs

Download the current evaluation and assumptions. Save before reloading the page.

Methodology & limitations

Weighted additive scoreEach criterion is scaled to 0–100 using the minimum and maximum across all original bids; cost criteria are inverted. Effective weights always sum to one.
Compliance before selectionHard gates are applied independently of score. Rejected bids remain visible for auditability.
Reproducible robustness analysisA seeded pseudo-random generator perturbs relative criterion weights. All bids are scored with identical sampled priorities.
Cost scenarios, not forecastsScenario uplifts and risk premia are declared assumptions. Inferred totals are only comparable within this toy model.
Not an automated award decisionHuman due diligence, law, conflicts of interest, accessibility, ethics and market validation remain necessary.
Privacy by designThis is a local-only static application. Imported data stays in memory until you navigate away, and exports happen in your browser.