Bidalize Sourcing

What would faster, cleaner sourcing save your team?

Enter your team size and how many requests you run each month. Every number below can be changed, and every assumption is shown.

Your team
USD
Everything your company buys from suppliers in a year. Adds a price savings line.
USD
Use total monthly cost to the company if you know it. A higher figure raises the saving.
Expected improvement
50%
Less time per request on drafting, chasing, reading and comparing quotes. Top of the 30 to 50% range McKinsey reports for sourcing cycle time; see sources.
30%
Less time on documentation, rework and audit preparation. Close to the 34% contract compliance gain Aberdeen Group reported; see sources.
Estimated saving
$0
per year, in staff time
Efficiency
Compliance and audit
Price savings
0hours saved per month
0more requests per month with the same team

Try Bidalize with your own quotes
Suggested plan

Team

$0plan cost per year
$0cost per request
$0net saving per year
0%return on the plan cost
OptionRequests coveredCost per month

Prices here are in USD and exclude tax; in the UK the plans are £29, £59 and £135 a month + VAT. Every plan has unlimited logins. Every account starts with 5 requests free, no card and no time limit. If you need more requests than a plan includes in a month, add a block of 10 (USD 45, valid 12 months), or move up a plan. The cheapest way to cover your volume is highlighted. See the plans.

Email me this report

A PDF with your figures, the saving, the suggested plan and every assumption behind it, to share with your finance team.

We use these details to send the report and keep a record that it was sent. See the privacy policy.

Assumptions behind the numbers
hrs
About 1 hour to write and send the request, 2 to build the comparison, 1 to fix errors and gaps, and 1 to chase suppliers. A Bidalize default from how the work goes today, not an analyst figure. Replace it with your own.
hrs
Filing the record, justifying the choice, answering finance or audit later. Also a Bidalize default.
hrs
Used to turn monthly salary into an hourly cost.
%
The everyday purchases you ask suppliers to quote for, not contracts, salaries or rent. BCG puts this kind of spend at about 20% of the total.
%
About 0.5% from avoiding comparison errors (a wrong figure that changes who wins) and 1 to 2% from comparing every quote properly. BCG finds 5 to 10% for full tail-spend programmes; this claims a fraction of that. Applied only when a spend figure is entered. 
Hourly cost        = monthly salary / working hours per month
Efficiency saving  = requests x hours per request x efficiency % x hourly cost
Compliance saving  = requests x audit hours per request x compliance % x hourly cost
Price saving       = yearly spend / 12 x share through quotes x price improvement %
Yearly             = monthly x 12
Hours are capped at your team's total working hours.

Where the improvement figures come from

  • The Hackett Group, Digital World Class procurement research (October 2021) Digital world-class procurement organizations run at 25% lower cost than typical peers. A separate Hackett release says full digital deployment can cut a typical procurement organization's cost by 45%. Supports the efficiency figure. Business Wire release · Nasdaq release
  • McKinsey, procurement and AI research A 30 to 50% reduction in sourcing cycle time is the typical outcome when AI tools support supplier identification, request preparation and bid analysis. Up to 70% in advanced deployments. Taken from a third-party summary, not from McKinsey's own report. Summary page
  • Aberdeen Group, e-procurement and spend analysis benchmarks Companies reported a 41% reduction in maverick spend and a 48% lower requisition-to-order cost after adopting e-procurement. Its spend analysis study reported a 34% average increase in contract compliance. Supports the compliance figure. These are older studies, so treat them as a direction, not a forecast. IndustryWeek report
  • BCG, Taming Tail Spend (2019) Tail spend is about 20% of spend but about 80% of transactions. Firms that manage it digitally cut it by 5 to 10% a year on average. Supports the share and price improvement figures. BCG article
  • Raymond Panko, spreadsheet error research Field audits since 1997 found errors in at least 86% of the spreadsheets examined, with 0.4 to 2.5% of cells wrong. Why retyped comparisons go wrong. Paper

For buyers who answer to a donor, a board or an auditor, a purchase that cannot be evidenced can be disallowed in full. That risk is real but rare, so it is not in the numbers above.

These studies measure procurement automation in general, not Bidalize. The 50% efficiency default sits at the top of the cited range. Move the slider down for a cautious estimate. Hours per request are Bidalize assumptions, not analyst figures.