Kravmatchning: How to Write a Requirement Match That Buyers Can Check

It's 16:40 on a Thursday. A broker has sent a request for a senior Java developer, answers due tomorrow at noon. You have three consultants who might fit, three Word CVs of different ages, and a list of eight requirements. The CVs are the easy part. The table that answers each requirement is what takes the evening.

That table is the requirement match, or kravmatchning. This guide explains what it is, why buyers read it first, and how to write one they can check in a minute.

TL;DR

• A requirement match answers each requirement with a verdict (met, partly met, not met) and the evidence for it.
• Ska-krav are mandatory: a tender that misses one does not go on to evaluation. Bör-krav are scored.
• Buyers may only judge what your answer says. Quote the assignment, the years and the client. Don't make them search.
• Never stretch a verdict. An honest "not met" costs less than a "met" that a buyer later checks and rejects.

What is a requirement match (kravmatchning)?

A requirement match is a table that lists every requirement in a request, gives each one a verdict, and points to the part of the consultant's experience that proves it. In Swedish it is usually called a kravmatchning.

A good row has four parts:

The last row is not a mistake. When the profile holds no evidence, the honest answer is Nej and the evidence is empty. We'll come back to why.

Ska-krav and bör-krav: what the difference means for your answer

Swedish requests split requirements into two kinds, and the split changes how you write.

Ska-krav (must-haves) are what Upphandlingsmyndigheten calls obligatoriska krav. Its guidance for buyers is direct: "De obligatoriska kraven måste uppfyllas för att leverantörens anbud ska gå vidare till anbudsutvärdering", meaning mandatory requirements must be met for the tender to go on to evaluation at all.

Bör-krav (should-haves) are usually tilldelningskriterier, award criteria. The same page notes that a tender can still win a contract even when an award criterion is not met. Upphandlingsmyndigheten's advice to suppliers calls them out by name: describe carefully "hur du uppfyller tilldelningskriterierna, så kallade ”bör-krav”", so the tender scores as well as it can.

So the two kinds need different writing:

Private broker requests borrow the same vocabulary. A broker usually forwards the end client's list, and the consultant with every ska-krav met is the one who gets presented.

Why the evidence matters more than the verdict

Buyers do not take your word for it, and in public procurement they are not allowed to guess either.

The Swedish Public Procurement Act, LOU (SFS 2016:1145), requires the authority to check, before it awards a contract, that the tender "uppfyller de krav, villkor och kriterier som anges i upphandlingsdokumenten" (4 kap. 10 §). When it evaluates on the best price-quality ratio, the award criteria must be presented so that "det utifrån leverantörens uppgifter går att kontrollera hur väl ett anbud uppfyller kriterierna" (16 kap. 2 §): it must be possible to check, from what the supplier wrote, how well the tender meets them.

Upphandlingsmyndigheten puts the consequence for suppliers plainly: the buying organisation "ska endast ta hänsyn till sådant som uttryckligen framgår i anbudet och inget annat". It may only consider what your tender explicitly says. And there is usually no second chance: the starting point is that a bidder has one chance to submit its best tender, and incomplete tenders are commonly rejected.

That is the whole case for evidence. If the proof isn't in the row, for the buyer it doesn't exist.

How to write each row: the four-part pattern

Every row should let a reader who has never met the consultant tick the box in under ten seconds.

1. Copy the requirement word for word. Don't paraphrase "Minst 5 års erfarenhet av Java" into "Senior Java". The buyer matches your table against their list.
2. Mark the type. Ska or Bör, as the request does. If the request mixes them in running text, sort them before you start; Upphandlingsmyndigheten warns that requirements can be spread throughout the documents and easy to miss.
3. Give one verdict. Ja, Delvis or Nej (met, partly met, not met). No "Ja*".
4. Quote the evidence. Assignment, client (or its anonymised label), years, and the specific fact. Numbers beat adjectives.

Weak and strong evidence, side by side

Requirement: Erfarenhet av Spring Boot (Ska)

❌ "Very experienced with Spring and modern Java frameworks."

✅ "Built the Spring Boot services for Skatteverket's declaration flow, 2021 to 2024."

Requirement: Uppdrag inom offentlig sektor (Ska)

❌ "Has worked with several public clients."

✅ "Skatteverket (2021 to 2024) and Försäkringskassan (2015 to 2016)."

Requirement: Kafka (Bör)

❌ "Kafka: Ja."

✅ "Designed the event streams between the declaration services on Kafka at Skatteverket, 2022 to 2024."

The strong versions are not longer for the sake of it. Each one names where, when and what, which is exactly what a checker looks for.

"Delvis" and "Nej": the honest verdicts

The temptation, at 22:00, is to turn every Delvis into a Ja. Don't.

Use Delvis when the consultant has the substance but not the exact form the requirement names: OpenShift when the request says Kubernetes, four and a half years when it says five, a team-lead role without the title. Say what is there and what isn't. A buyer scoring a bör-krav can give partial points; a buyer who finds an overstated Ja can give none, and may stop trusting the rest of the table.

Use Nej when the profile has no evidence. Leave the evidence column empty rather than writing around it. For a ska-krav, a Nej is a signal to you before it is a signal to the buyer: present a different consultant, or ask the buyer a question in time. Upphandlingsmyndigheten advises suppliers to ask questions as early as possible, because there is limited room to correct or complete a tender after the deadline.

A requirement match is only as useful as its least honest row.

The 24-hour checklist

When a broker request lands in the afternoon, this is the order that saves the most time:

1. List the requirements. Every ska and bör, copied exactly, numbered.
2. Rule out early. For each candidate, check the ska-krav first. One certain Nej on a must-have and that consultant is out, before anyone rewrites a CV.
3. Write the evidence from the profile, not from memory. Use the consultant's latest assignments and dates.
4. Tailor the CV to the match. The assignments that carry the evidence go first and say the same thing the table says. See how to tailor a consultant CV to a tender.
5. Check language and format. Answer in the language the request asks for, in the format the broker or buyer wants. Upphandlingsmyndigheten's list for suppliers includes making sure the tender is written in the requested language.
6. Anonymise if asked. Some brokers want CVs without names or client names. See anonymised consultant CVs for brokers.
7. Read every row once more. Does each Ja point at something a stranger could verify?

Where requirement matches go wrong

How ConsultCV drafts the match

ConsultCV keeps one structured profile per consultant. When you paste a request, it lists the requirements as ska or bör, checks each one against the profile and drafts a verdict with the evidence quoted from a real assignment. Where the profile holds no evidence, the verdict is Nej and the evidence is left empty: it does not invent experience to fill a gap. You edit any row, then export the match and a tailored CV together. You can try it with one CV without an account.

What is the difference between kravmatchning and a CV?

The CV describes the consultant. The requirement match answers the buyer's list, one requirement at a time, and points into the CV for proof. Buyers often read the match first.

Are bör-krav optional?

They are not mandatory, but they are usually scored as award criteria. Missing them costs points rather than ending the tender, so answer them as carefully as the ska-krav.

Can we answer Ja when the consultant almost meets a requirement?

Use Delvis and say exactly what is there. In public procurement the buyer may only consider what the tender explicitly says, and an overstated answer can cost you the whole response.

Do public buyers ask for named consultants?

They can. LOU 4 kap. 4 § lets an authority require a supplier of services to give the names and professional qualifications of the people who will perform them.