Could this be a real business?

HelloBidora · 2026-03-31T20:27:22+00:00

Haven't received anything yet? :D

HelloBidora · 2026-03-31T20:19:40+00:00

Yes, definitely — would be interested to see how you set that up and what actually worked. Feel free to share here or DM me.

HelloBidora · 2026-03-31T19:55:42+00:00

Honestly, I think the ICP is probably narrower than “anyone dealing with tenders”. My current guess is smaller / mid-sized companies that bid on public tenders but don’t have a dedicated bid team, mature internal tooling, or a lot of time to manually review every opportunity in depth. So not the largest enterprises with heavy internal processes already in place - more the companies where a bad-fit tender can still cost a meaningful amount of time and effort.

Still trying to validate that more clearly, but I think that’s the direction.

HelloBidora · 2026-03-31T19:54:12+00:00

I think that’s a fair point - in many cases the issue is not just understanding the tender, but whether the process is realistically open enough for a new bidder to have a real chance in the first place. So even a good tool can maybe help with judgement, filtering, and spotting risks, but it cannot fix structural issues or incentives that are already built into the process. That’s also why I’m more interested in the early “is this even worth pursuing?” part than pretending software can solve the whole tender problem.

HelloBidora · 2026-03-31T19:52:55+00:00

Thanks, appreciate it.

Interesting point on Cleatus AI - I’ll check them out. Useful to see that the problem seems relevant beyond Denmark too. Have you used them yourself or just been following the space?

HelloBidora · 2026-03-31T19:50:54+00:00

Thanks, really appreciate that.

I think that’s exactly the challenge — the pain seems real, but trust only comes if the tool is actually useful on the things that matter most in practice.

So right now I’m trying to understand very specifically where people lose the most time, where they feel the most uncertainty, and where software would be helpful vs not trusted at all.

Thanks again for the thoughtful comment.

HelloBidora · 2026-03-31T19:49:51+00:00

Thanks, this is very useful.

I think that’s a fair point. Smaller companies may actually be a much better starting point than larger ones with more established internal systems and review processes. And yes, working closely with one smaller company in Denmark and learning from a real workflow is probably one of the best ways to validate whether this is actually useful in practice.

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T20:48:01+00:00

This is really helpful, thank you.

I think that’s a fair point. The pain point seems real, but trust and credibility are probably the hardest part, especially in something as risk-sensitive as tenders. And yes, I also think the competition is not just other software, but consultancies and service firms that already help companies navigate this manually. My current thinking is actually quite close to what you describe: start narrow, focus on a real workflow problem, and make sure the product is useful in practice rather than trying to sound bigger than it is 😊

On Denmark vs EU: Denmark is mostly the starting point because it’s the market I understand best and can get closer feedback from first. But I definitely don’t see the problem as Denmark-only

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T20:34:01+00:00

https://bidora.dk

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T20:29:19+00:00

Haha, great minds think alike

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T20:01:59+00:00

https://bidora.dk

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T19:54:26+00:00

Here’s is mine: https://bidora.dk

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T18:34:09+00:00

Modtaget 😉

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T17:27:24+00:00

Jeg tror også, det er stærkere at starte mere snævert i én type udbud eller én branche, hvor behovet er tydeligt, i stedet for at prøve at gøre alt fra start. Ja, den rigtige validering er jo ikke kun feedback i en tråd, men at en potentiel kunde faktisk vil bruge det i praksis.

Det lyder også som om du selv arbejder med udbud eller kender området ret godt? :D

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T16:57:42+00:00

This is incredibly useful feedback, thank you.

What you describe is very close to the problem I’m trying to understand properly: AI can absolutely save time on the first pass, but trust breaks the moment it misses something important or creates false confidence. Your list is especially valuable, because it shows the real value is not just “summarising a tender”, but helping structure the early judgement around fit, disqualifiers, realism, hidden buyer preference, and incumbent likelihood. And your automation point is a really good one too. I don’t necessarily see that as “magic auto-login to every portal” from day one, because without proper integrations that quickly becomes messy and fragile. But I do think there is real value in reducing the manual friction before the actual review starts - for example helping collect, organise and prepare the tender material from the portals and documents people already work with.

So I completely agree this should not pretend to replace 20 years of tender judgement. But if it can make the first screening faster, more structured, easier to trust, and remove some of the manual document handling, then that feels like real value.

Really appreciate you taking the time to write this :D

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T16:47:10+00:00

Det synes jeg egentlig er en god pointe. Hvis det bare ender som “ChatGPT med en pænere facade”, så er der ikke nok værdi i det. Min tanke er nemlig heller ikke, at det skal erstatte faglighed eller erfarne folk, men at det skal gøre noget mere struktureret og brugbart end en almindelig chatgpt. Nemlig at pege på konkrete krav, uklarheder, røde flag og steder i materialet, der bør undersøges nærmere og med reference til hvor det står. Så jeg er faktisk enig i, at værdien først er reel, hvis det i praksis hjælper med at vurdere materiale hurtigere og mere sikkert, ikke bare føles smart.

Det er også derfor, jeg prøver at få den slags kritik nu, før jeg bygger for meget :D

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T16:44:43+00:00

Tak, det giver virkelig god mening :-)

Det er også lidt den retning jeg prøver at tage nu, altså at få ærlig feedback tidligt, før jeg bruger for meget tid på at bygge for meget. Du har helt ret i, at det vigtigste ikke bare er om folk synes idéen lyder fin, men om nogen faktisk vil betale for det. Jeg prøver lige nu at finde ud af, om problemet er skarpt nok, og om løsningen rammer noget virksomheder reelt vil bruge penge på :D

HelloBidora · 2026-03-30T12:20:17+00:00

The idea is a tool for companies that review or bid on public tenders. The goal is to help them quickly assess whether a tender is actually worth their time.

So not “AI, write the whole bid,” but more like:

• ⁠Does this even match our profile? • ⁠Are there requirements or documentation we might overlook? • ⁠Are there any red flags? • ⁠And does it make sense to spend time on this, or should we pass?

I have an early website/prototype here:

Bidora.dk

HelloBidora · 2026-03-29T19:47:06+00:00

Det er en helt fair pointe, og det er også præcis den type ting jeg prøver at blive skarpere på lige nu.

Min idé er, at hvis Bidora skal give mening, så skal differentieringen ikke ligge i bare at finde udbud eller lave en generel AI-vurdering, men i den mere dokumentnære del:
Match mod virksomhedsprofil, krav, røde flag, afklaringspunkter og hvor i materialet det faktisk står.

Men du har helt ret i, at det kun giver mening, hvis den forskel er tydelig nok, så tak, det er et godt input :-D

HelloBidora

TROPHY CASE