Panel-Bid Diagnostics
Alt-V diagnostic tools
Panel-Bid Economics & AI-Adjusted Pricing Simulator
Model the profitability of a panel bid under different rate cards, leverage models, and AI-driven delivery
Most panel bids are priced from the rate card downwards — a percentage discount off headline, a promise of "efficiency", and a hope that volume covers the compression. This tool models the actual economics: matter mix, leverage, AI substitution, realisation, write-offs and working capital, over the panel term.
Structured inputs only — no RFP upload, no client data leaves your browser. Everything you enter stays local unless you unlock the full report.
5
Intake steps
~15 min
To complete
3-yr
Panel-term P&L
Step 1 of 5
Firm baseline
Your rate card, cost-to-serve and target margin. Everything else builds off these.
Consortium mode models a joint bid where two or more firms share the work. Each firm's economics is modelled separately, with a coordination overhead absorbed by each member.
Currency drives display prefix and default values. Changing mid-flow will not auto-convert entered values.
Rate card (headline, per billable hour)
Cost-to-serve (per billable hour)
Applied only if cost basis is salary-only. 0.35 ≈ 35% overhead over salary.
Firm-level target for panel work. Used for RAG rating.
Consortium mode: each member firm's rate card, leverage, cost of capital and coordination overhead are set here. Work allocation between members happens on Step 3 alongside matter mix.
Adjust after configuring — reducing count discards later member data.
Roles inform reporting narrative only (no calculation weight).
Member firms
Optional
Jurisdictional tax overlay
Home vs cross-border tax effects on this bid. Indicative only — not a substitute for tax advice.
Off (default) preserves pre-tax-only behaviour. On adds post-tax margin, post-tax break-even and a tax summary to the full report.
Firm home jurisdiction
Seeded from home jurisdiction (UK 25% / AU 30%); editable.
Other jurisdiction (single — see scope note below)
Two-jurisdiction scope only: home + one Other. Bids spanning three or more jurisdictions should model the dominant split here and flag the remainder for explicit tax advice.
Step 2 of 5
Panel context
Who the buyer is, what commercial structure they demand, and how long you're committing.
Informs AI-substitution defaults; does not affect calculation weights.
Pricing structure demanded
Applied to rate card in discount / mixed modes. Held flat over the term.
Rate rise on the underlying card; panel discount % stays flat.
Step 3 of 5
Matter mix & leverage
What work you expect to do on this panel, how much, and who does it.
Enter the matter categories you expect to bill on this panel. Volumes should be your realistic annual expectation, not the RFP's headline addressable spend. Leverage percentages must sum to 100 per row.
Consortium allocation
Work allocation matrix
Split each matter category between consortium members. Rows must sum to 100% (±0.5% tolerance).
Jurisdictional tax overlay
Work-location matrix
Which matter categories are worked at home vs the Other jurisdiction you configured on Step 1.
Categories added after the tax overlay was configured default to "Same as home" — check the highlighted rows.
Step 4 of 5
AI delivery-substitution assumptions
What share of hours by task type can be shifted to AI-assisted delivery, across three sensitivity scenarios.
Substitution % = the share of hours in each task type that AI-assisted delivery (deployed tool + supervised workflow) can absorb. Central = Alt-V Legal Tech Atlas central estimate. Conservative and aggressive scenarios apply multipliers to your central assumption.
Substitution rates (central assumption)
Task-type share of typical matter hours
Residual (partner strategy, court appearance, negotiation) = 15%. Not AI-substitutable in the current model.
Sensitivity multipliers
Patchy adoption, heavy supervision
Realistic supervised deployment
Full workflow redesign
Charged to cost, applied to every matter in the mix regardless of scenario.
Step 5 of 5
Realisation, write-offs & working capital
The below-the-line drag most rate-card models ignore.
Of hours worked, % actually billed on the invoice.
Of billed invoices, % ultimately unpaid.
Working capital
Negative values allowed for declining panels.
Free output — year 1 headline
Panel-bid economics
Year-1 margin (central)
Break-even discount
Central scenario — 3-year margin
| Year | Revenue (net) | Cost | Margin | Margin % |
|---|
Unlock the full report
Two minutes and it's yours
3-year P&L across all three AI scenarios, margin bridge, sensitivity table, break-even, and a board-ready PDF.
Please enter your name.
Please enter a valid work email.
Privacy consent is required to unlock the report.
Panel-Bid Economics · v1.2
Generated:
Data lock: 2026-08-29
Panel-bid economics
3-year P&L · sensitivity · margin bridge · break-even
Executive summary
Bid recommendation
| Year-1 margin (central) | |
| 3-year cumulative margin (central) | |
| Break-even panel discount | |
| Conservative-scenario year-1 margin | |
| Aggressive-scenario year-1 margin |
Assumptions
What we modelled
Firm baseline
Panel context
Matter mix
| Category | Vol | Hrs | Leverage P/S/J/PL |
|---|
AI & realisation
Section 1
Three-year P&L — all scenarios
Revenue, cost, working-capital drag and margin for each of the three AI substitution scenarios.
Section 2
Margin bridge — year 1 (central)
From an as-is delivery to panel-term delivery: where the margin comes from, and where it goes.
Section 3
Sensitivity
How the margin moves across AI-substitution scenarios and years.
Section 4
Break-even analysis
The panel discount (or fixed fees) at which year-1 margin hits zero, given your other inputs.
Section 5
Bid recommendation & next steps
© 2026 Derek Duffy / Alt-V Law. This report was generated from user-supplied inputs. Assumptions and calculations are the responsibility of the user. Not financial or legal advice.