Skip to main content
Tenders

National Paediatric Diabetes Audit

Open
Deadline
4 days left
April 01, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Open Procedure
Reference
018523-2026
Value
£6,376,700
Location
United Kingdom
Published
March 20, 2026
CPV Code
Project Timeline

Tender Published

March 02, 2026

Deadline for Questions

March 25, 2026

Submission Deadline

April 01, 2026

Contract Start Date

April 29, 2027

Budget
£6,376,700
Duration
36 months
Location
United Kingdom
Type
Open Procedure
75
Quality Score/100
Good

Original Tender Description

The contract will initially be delivered for NHS-funded care in England, Wales, and publicly funded care in Jersey for a period of 3 years, at a maximum total budget of up to £1,103,361 including VAT, £1,138,669 excluding VAT. Bids exceeding this limit may be rejected. There is the potential to extend this contract for up to 24 months. All pricing submissions must be in regard to this 'core' value, and not inclusive of any extension costs or aspirational intent costs, i.e. Please only submit a cost schedule up to the maximum core value of £1,103,361 including VAT, £1,138,669 excluding VAT. The maximum budget ‘core’ value of £1,103,361 including VAT, £1,138,669 excluding VAT excludes the potential two year extension and aspirational intent as described in section 14.4 of Annex A - Service Specification. Please note, there is no commitment by the Authority at this stage to include any aspirational intent measures. Taking the total of this aspirational intent into account, as well as the possibility that a contract extension may be offered for an additional two years, the potential ceiling value is £6,376,600 GBP including VAT, £5,313,917 GBP excluding VAT. The role of a national clinical audit is to stimulate healthcare improvement through the provision of high quality information on the organisation, delivery and outcomes of healthcare, together with tools and support to enable healthcare providers and other audiences to make best use of this information. Outcomes are benchmarked against national guidance and standards e.g. quality standards from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and those from other established professional and patient sources. Successful national audits are those where the individuals providing the data are also in a position to improve the system, and there is a shared understanding of what good care looks like. The overarching aim is to stimulate improvements in care for children and young people (CYP) with paediatric diabetes who receive care from Paediatric Diabetes Units (PDUs), by measuring variations in quality, experience and outcomes of NHS care in England and Wales, and publicly funded care in Jersey. During this contract period, the successful tenderer will need to build on the achievements of the audit to date and enhance the ability for the audit to be used for healthcare improvement. *The term CYP (Children and Young People) will be used throughout this notice to refer to children, adolescents and young people up to 24 years (treated within a Paediatric Diabetes Unit (PDU)). This audit programme is expected to: •Develop a robust, high-quality audit designed around 10 key quality metrics likely to best support local and national healthcare quality improvement •Detect, describe and help reduce unwarranted clinical variation by systematically benchmarking performance, identifying outliers, and supporting services to understand variation in outcomes, processes and experience •Achieve, articulate and maintain close alignment with relevant NICE national guidance and quality standards throughout the audit, as appropriate •Enable healthcare quality improvement through the provision of timely, high-quality data that compares providers of healthcare, and comprises an integrated mixture of named Trust or Health board, Integrated Care System (ICS), commissioner, multidisciplinary team (MDT), possibly consultant or clinical team level and other levels of reporting •Be clinically led •Engage patients, carers and the public in a meaningful way, achieving a strong patient voice which informs and contributes to the design, functioning, outputs and direction of the audit •Consider the value and feasibility of linking data at an individual patient level to other relevant national datasets either from the outset or in the future, and plan for these linkages from the inception of the contract •Ensure robust methodological and statistical input at all stages of the audit •Identify from the outset the full range of audiences for the reports and other audit outputs, and plan and tailor them accordingly •Provide audit results in a timely, accessible and meaningful manner to support healthcare quality improvement, minimising the reporting delay and providing continual access to each unit for their own data •Utilise strong and effective project and programme management to deliver audit outputs on time and within budget •Develop and maintain strong engagement with local clinicians, networks, commissioners, patients, their families and carers as well as charity and community support groups to drive improvements in services. The anticipated outputs are: •Quarterly interactive metric results •Publication of an annual state of the nation report •Quality improvement resources •The identification and notification of outliers in line with HQIP and provider policies. The provider shall apply the agreed statistical methodology for outlier detection and identify units, ICBs or health boards that demonstrate performance significantly below expected levels on key NPDA indicators. •One published spotlight report to be decided by the NPDA dataset and methodology group in conjunction with HQIP and funders •One published PREM report to be decided by the NPDA dataset and methodology group in conjunction with HQIP and funder •Hybrid closed loop work in collaboration with NHSE HCL implementation plan To respond to this opportunity, please visit https://www.delta-esourcing.com/respond/B249J9GYMY

Risk Analysis

Please log in to use risk analysis.

Login

Win Strategy

Please log in to access winning strategy recommendations.

Login

Competitors

Upgrade to see which companies are likely to bid on this tender, based on historical procurement data.

Login

Requirements & Qualifications

38 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (1)
Mandatory (1)
Compliance (14)
Technical (19)
Financial (3)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS1
--Respond to this opportunity by visiting https://www.delta-esourcing.com/respond/B249J9GYMY
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--Bids exceeding the maximum core value of £1,103,361 including VAT, £1,138,669 excluding VAT may be rejected.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS14
--Must be capable of delivering the contract for NHS-funded care in England, Wales, and publicly funded care in Jersey.
--Must be able to build on the achievements of the audit to date and enhance its ability for healthcare improvement.
--Must be able to develop a robust, high-quality audit designed around 10 key quality metrics.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS19
--Ability to develop a robust, high-quality audit designed around 10 key quality metrics.
--Ability to detect, describe and help reduce unwarranted clinical variation by systematically benchmarking performance, identifying outliers, and supporting services to understand variation in outcomes, processes and experience.
--Ability to achieve, articulate and maintain close alignment with relevant NICE national guidance and quality standards.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS3
--All pricing submissions must be in regard to the 'core' value of up to £1,103,361 including VAT, £1,138,669 excluding VAT.
--Pricing submissions must not be inclusive of any extension costs or aspirational intent costs.
--The maximum budget ‘core’ value excludes the potential two year extension and aspirational intent.

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

No processed documents available for this tender.

Documents will appear here once they are downloaded and analyzed.

75
Good

Tender Quality Score

This tender for the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit is generally well-structured with a clear description of the scope and objectives. However, it lacks explicit evaluation criteria and accessible document content, impacting transparency. The financial structure, distinguishing between core and potential extension values, is somewhat complex.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender appears to comply with most legal and regulatory requirements, including proper CPV codes and the use of an open procedure. Deadlines are provided. The main concern is the absence of explicit evaluation criteria, which is a crucial element for legal compliance in procurement transparency. The contract start date is a year after the submission deadline, which is a significant lead time but acceptable. No disputes are noted.

No evaluation criteria specified.
Clarity80/100

The description of the audit's purpose, objectives, and expected outputs is detailed and provides a good understanding of the scope. The distinction between core and potential contract value is explained. However, the lack of accessible document content means potential bidders cannot fully assess all documented requirements before expressing interest or submitting a bid.

No document content available.
Completeness70/100

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and contract start date. The CPV code is provided. However, the lack of accessible tender documents means essential completeness for a bidder is compromised, as they cannot fully review all attached documents. The absence of stated evaluation criteria also detracts from completeness.

No document content available.
Missing evaluation criteria.
Fairness85/100

The tender uses an open procedure and discloses the estimated value and its breakdown into core and potential extension values, which contributes to fairness. Objective criteria for requirements are largely outlined in the AI-extracted requirements. However, the lack of readily accessible document content without explicit mention of an e-procurement portal for document retrieval (beyond a submission link) and the absence of stated evaluation criteria may reduce transparency and perceived fairness.

No document content available.
Missing evaluation criteria.
Practicality65/100

The tender specifies an e-submission link, which is positive. The contract duration and start date are clear. Financing information (estimated value) is provided. However, the lack of readily accessible document content makes it difficult to assess the full practicality of the submission process and the contract requirements. The submission deadline is a reasonable duration from the date of the notice.

No document content available.
Data Consistency90/100

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, contract duration, and start date are populated. There are no noted suspensions or disputes. The dates provided are logical, with a reasonable submission deadline relative to the contract start date. The distinction between core and potential value is consistently explained.

Sustainability50/100

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, innovation focus, or EU funding. This indicates a lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria within this procurement process.

Not green procurement.
No social criteria.

Strengths

Clear and detailed description of audit objectives and expected outputs.
Specific CPV code provided.
Open procedure with clear financial information including core and potential values.
Reasonable contract duration and start date.

Concerns

Crucially missing evaluation criteria make objective assessment difficult for bidders.
No accessible content for tender documents, hindering full review.
Lack of explicit sustainability considerations (green, social, innovation).

Recommendations

1. Publish the evaluation criteria to ensure transparency and fairness.
2. Make the full tender documentation accessible to potential bidders.

AI Scoring Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Complete quality score analysis
Detailed sub-score breakdown
Strengths & concerns insights
Strategic recommendations

No credit card required • Setup in 2 minutes

New Service

Want us to handle this tender?

Our procurement experts prepare everything. Proven to work — you review, approve, and submit.

~1hYour time only
80%+80%+
$0Upfront
See full comparison
Without TaaSWith TaaS
40-80 hrs
Preparation time
~1 hr
Your time only
15-25%
Average win rate
80%+
Win rate
Risk of errors
Manual review
Expert QA
Compliance check
You do all
Handle everything
We do all
End-to-end service
Let's Win This Tender
Pay only when you win · 400+ companies trust us
Or do it yourself

Add to Pipeline