Plumpton College Internal Audit Services

This tender for Internal Audit Services demonstrates good foundational elements like clear scope and e-submission, but is significantly hampered by a lack of detailed quality evaluation criteria and several data inconsistencies.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and there are no reported disputes. However, the 'Liable Person' field is empty, and the crucial 'reveal date' is missing, making it impossible to assess the full legal compliance regarding the tender's publication timeline. The AI summary also lacks explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, which are typically a standard legal requirement.

The overall description of the required services is clear, and the weighting for quality and price (60/40) is specified. However, the tender explicitly lacks detailed evaluation criteria for the 'quality' component, which is a significant gap. This makes it difficult for potential suppliers to understand how their proposals will be assessed beyond the general weighting.

The tender provides most essential information, including title, reference, organization, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location. All four tender documents are available. However, the absence of detailed quality evaluation criteria and the empty 'Liable Person' field represent notable gaps in completeness.

The tender offers full document access, discloses the estimated value, and supports e-procurement, promoting equal access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the lack of detailed quality evaluation criteria significantly impacts transparency and objectivity, making it challenging for bidders to prepare competitive and relevant proposals. The missing reveal date also prevents an assessment of fair preparation time from the tender's initial publication.

The tender supports electronic submission via the MultiQuote platform, clearly specifies the contract start date and duration, and provides financing information. These elements contribute to a practical and accessible bidding process.

While dates are logical and there are no disputes, several key fields are unpopulated, such as 'Liable Person' and procedure codes. A significant inconsistency exists between the estimated value stated in EUR (€90,000) and the value mentioned in the document summaries in GBP (£75,000 ex VAT), which requires clarification.

The tender does not include any explicit requirements or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.