Comprehensive Town Council Insurance Policy

This tender for a comprehensive insurance policy is generally well-structured with clear basic requirements, but suffers from significant deficiencies including missing evaluation criteria, lack of e-submission, and restrictive eligibility, impacting fairness and transparency.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and there are no reported disputes. However, the absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds is a notable legal gap. The UK-only supplier requirement, while potentially permissible for a below-threshold UK tender, could be seen as restrictive in broader procurement principles.

The description of the required insurance policy, including duration and key covers like terrorism and cyber-crime, is clear. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly hinders clarity for potential bidders. There's also a minor inconsistency where terrorism cover is required but noted as not specified in the accompanying proposal schedule.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and deadlines are all provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of evaluation criteria. Furthermore, the content of the crucial 'accompanying proposal schedule' is not fully summarized, and one key document ('Tender Notice') failed to download, impacting the overall completeness of accessible information.

The tender's fairness is significantly compromised by the complete absence of evaluation criteria, which prevents objective and transparent assessment. The lack of e-submission capabilities creates an unequal playing field for bidders. Additionally, the eligibility requirement that 'Suppliers must be based in the United Kingdom (UK)' is highly restrictive and limits competition, even if legally permissible for a below-threshold tender.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, which aids practical planning. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders and the contracting authority.

Most key fields are populated, and dates (submission, contract start, duration) are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. A minor inconsistency exists regarding terrorism cover being required but not specified in the proposal schedule, and some minor fields like 'Liable Person' and specific procedure codes are unpopulated.

The tender does not include any explicit criteria or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. This indicates a lack of focus on broader sustainability objectives.