<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Tender Writing on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</title>
    <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/tags/tender-writing/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Tender Writing on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/tags/tender-writing/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>How to Write Better Detection-Range Requirements in Tenders</title>
      <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/knowledge-base/how-to-write-better-detection-range-requirements-in-tenders/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/knowledge-base/how-to-write-better-detection-range-requirements-in-tenders/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Many security tenders ask for a detection range in a way that sounds precise but is not actually measurable. A clause might say that the system must detect a drone at 5 kilometers, a person at 2 kilometers, or a vehicle at long range. The wording looks technical because it contains numbers, but it often leaves out the information needed to judge whether the number means anything operationally.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That is how procurement creates avoidable conflict. The vendor thinks the tender is asking for a nominal instrument figure under one set of assumptions. The buyer thinks the tender is asking for dependable field performance under site conditions that were never written down. The acceptance phase then becomes a dispute about meaning rather than a test of delivery.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
