Gate register
Six solicitations I screened between 22 August and 8 September 2026, and the clause in each that ends the bid for a supplier with no certifications, no client references and no staff. Every line below comes from the solicitation's own documents or its published notice. Where the clause sits inside a document rather than on the notice page, I say so.
1. Certification named only in the pack
The notice reads open. Relevant Experience and References carries 1.5% of the score, insurance evidence is asked of the preferred tenderer only, financial standing likewise, and there is no bid fee. The disqualifier is in Section 3 Part A, the supplier assessment form, under Accreditations Required:
Mandatory - Information Security ISO 27001:2022
It is a yes/no accreditations declaration, described as a minimum requirement for delivery, on a form that reserves the right to reject a submission in its entirety for false or misleading content. Section 1 Part C adds a pass/fail Tier 1 supplier cybersecurity questionnaire asking for a named CISO, a maintained risk register, CREST or CHECK penetration testing and DBS pre-employment screening. Both sit six documents into the pack.
2. A sector questionnaire in front of the work
Above threshold, open procedure, on the NHS e-sourcing portal, with a 36-month term and two twelve-month extensions. The bid opens with the standard NHS Selection Questionnaire, so financial standing and insurance certificates arrive before any question about the software. Behind that sit DTAC and DCB0129, the technology-assurance and clinical-safety assessments, which assume an organisation with a named clinical safety officer and a signed hazard log. None of that appears on the notice page. The shape of the contract is a licensed clinical product with support rather than a build.
3. A geography clause written as a work-authorisation clause
Otherwise the best-shaped work I have read this year: a flat fixed fee explicitly required, remote, no references, no certifications. One sentence closes it:
You must be able to work in the United States as The Exchange does not yet have visa-sponsoring capabilities.
The clause sits in the body of a posting advertised as fully remote.
4. Invitation-only, published as an open notice
The notice is public and the work is small. It is selectively tendered, open only to holders of the ProServices supply arrangement, with six firms already named as invited. A supply arrangement admits new holders on its own quarterly cycle, so the competition is closed to anyone not already in it.
5. Experience scored, with a floor under the score
No reference gate and no insurance gate, so this one I could submit, and did. It came back 16 out of 40 on respondent experience against a stated minimum of 25, and 24 out of 60 on service area experience against a minimum of 40. The minimums are printed in the evaluation table rather than in the eligibility section, and a minimum under a scored section disqualifies as completely as a pass/fail clause.
6. A product purchase described as a build
Two notices, one class. CRA specifies that the portal must be browser- and app-based software as a service, awarded to the lowest responsive price. Halton Hills asks for a fully integrated commercial off-the-shelf SaaS solution. Both are catalogue purchases evaluated on a priced product, and a quote to build one has nowhere to score.
What the six have in common
In five of the six, the clause that decides eligibility is not on the notice page but in an assessment form, an evaluation table or a scope paragraph inside the pack. Boards do publish structured eligibility fields, and on most of these solicitations those fields were empty, which is a publishing default rather than a statement that the pack is clean.
Added 10 September 2026: ten notices, none of them the work they are filed as
Ten fresh notices carrying software CPV codes, screened in one pass. All ten are out, and only two are out for a reason a bidder could read off the notice page. The other eight are filed as software procurement and are something else.
A vendor risk and attack surface monitoring platform (TED 562152) and a curriculum management solution (560033) are single-supplier awards for a licensed platform, so there is nothing to build. 135 Bluebeam Revu licences (564479) is resale under a CPV that says software development. 553132 is hybrid cloud infrastructure with associated equipment, which is hardware, and 564605 is secretariat services, which is administration. 562853, minor change development and maintenance on a national postal platform, is an open-ended retainer and not a scoped job. The Enterprise Permitting and Licensing row is a notice of intent to direct-award to a named incumbent through 2028, sitting in the same feed as competitive notices.
The two with readable gates: a EUR 1.56M national consenting portal (564494) on turnover and reference conditions, and Canadian defence modelling and simulation (W7701-268094) on personnel security clearance.
The CPV code is assigned by the buyer. It does not distinguish building software from buying it, and under a development code eight of these ten were neither. A keyword or CPV filter over a tender feed returns them anyway.
I screen solicitations for a living, so read the above knowing where it comes from. Han Kim, sole proprietor, Gatineau, Quebec. NEQ 2274778242. hankimproduction@gmail.com