THE FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL LIMITED
Research Services - Benchmarking the Value of XBRL and structured data in an AI-Driven Reporting Environment
The procurement contact named on the official notice.
Full information on FRC can be found here https://www.frc.org.uk/ PLEASE REFER TO THE INVITATION TO TENDER (ITT) FOR FULL DETAILS INCLUDING HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR TENDER IMPORTANT: • Please register your interest (and raise any tender queries) by emailing the FRC's procurement team - procurement@frc.org.uk • The FRC will share all tender queries and answers with those that have registered. • Your tender submission must be submitted within the deadline by email to procurement@frc.org.uk
The submission route named on the official notice.
This sits in the upper-middle of the Research & Development band — a substantial contract for the sector. Based on 20,405 valued Research & Development tenders in our corpus.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) regulates auditors, accountants and actuaries and sets the UK's Corporate Governance and Stewardship Codes.
As the Competent Authority for audit in the UK, we set auditing and ethical standards and monitor and enforce audit quality.
The FRC is seeking to strengthen its understanding of how structured data performs in an AI-driven reporting environment.
This aligns with the FRC's wider technology and digital reporting agenda, including work to understand the opportunities and risks arising from AI and to support high-quality digital reporting.
The FRC is seeking to commission research services to benchmark the value of XBRL in an AI-driven reporting environment.
The study will assess how structured data, including XBRL, performs in comparison with equivalent disclosures presented in PDF and HTML formats.
The research should use clearly evidenced measures, including accuracy, completeness, consistency and explainability, to compare how AI models interpret, extract and reason from disclosures in different formats.
The findings will support the FRC's work on digital reporting, structured data quality and the usability of corporate reporting information by preparers, users, regulators and technology providers.
This evidence gap is central to the proposed study.
The FRC requires robust comparative evidence on AI performance across equivalent disclosures presented in XBRL, PDF and HTML formats.
The FRC requires the appointment of a suitably qualified external research provider to design and deliver a benchmarking study comparing AI model performance across equivalent corporate reporting disclosures presented in XBRL, PDF and HTML formats.
The benchmarking should include determining which format is the most effective relating to: • Numerical information, • Accounting standard-related information, • Narrative information, and • Consistency and overall quality of information.
The external provider will be expected to propose a robust research design, identify and justify suitable AI models and testing methods, and produce clear, evidence-based findings.
PLEASE SEE INVITATION TO TENDER FOR FULL DETAILS.
What the supplier must deliver
This aligns with the FRC's wider technology
This aligns with the FRC's wider technology and digital reporting agenda, including work to understand the opportunities and risks arising from AI and to support high-quality digital reporting.
The research should use clearly evidenced measures
The research should use clearly evidenced measures, including accuracy, completeness, consistency and explainability, to compare how AI models interpret, extract and reason from disclosures in different formats.
The findings will support the FRC's work
The findings will support the FRC's work on digital reporting, structured data quality and the usability of corporate reporting information by preparers, users, regulators and technology providers.
The FRC requires the appointment of
The FRC requires the appointment of a suitably qualified external research provider to design and deliver a benchmarking study comparing AI model performance across equivalent corporate reporting disclosures presented in XBRL, PDF and HTML formats.
The benchmarking should include determining which format
The benchmarking should include determining which format is the most effective relating to:.
Derived from the notice text — always confirm against the original documents.
What it takes to bid this
Typical UK bid effort for the under £100k band — an estimate, not a quote.
Qualify & bid/no-bid ~10% · SQ / PQQ ~20% · Written response ~55% · Review & presentation ~15%
Typical for this category — confirm against the ITT pack
- Show at bidComparable references / case studies
- Hold at bidFinancial standing (accounts, often ~2× contract value turnover)
- Hold at bidInsurance cover (PL / EL, often PI)
- Show at bidSocial value commitments
Hold at bid = pass/fail conditions of participation. Show at bid = scored in the quality response. Plan for delivery = contract obligations from day one.
Make the case to bid
Reveal who to approach at THE FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL LIMITED, and generate a go-to-market strategy from their news, accounts and people.
The full intelligence dossier
Our agent reads THE FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL LIMITED’s accounts, hunts live signals, finds the people who decide — and hands you a bid strategy plus a go-to-market influence plan, including what your team should post this week. You approve every paid step.
Ask me about this tender, the buyer, who wins their work, or whether you should bid.
- OCID
- ocds-h6vhtk-06c503
- Stage
- tender · Open
- Source
- Find a Tender
- Buyer ref
- 063574-2026
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source data © Crown copyright.
Who wins this kind of work
The suppliers and buyers around this opportunity — drawn from official award data. Drag to orbit; click a node to explore.
Top suppliers & buyers in Research & Development
THE FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL LIMITED’s tender network
Assembling the network…