Skip to main content
Looking to bid on government tenders? See our TaaS tender preparation service
Tenders

National Registry of Robotically Assisted Surgery

Open
Deadline
16 days left
April 13, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Open Procedure
Reference
019354-2026
Value
£10,800,808
Location
United Kingdom
Published
March 20, 2026
CPV Code
Project Timeline

Tender Published

March 04, 2026

Deadline for Questions

April 06, 2026

Submission Deadline

April 13, 2026

Contract Start Date

September 30, 2026

Budget
£10,800,808
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 for a period of 3 years, at a maximum total budget of up to £1,300,320 including VAT, £1,083,600 excluding VAT. Bids exceeding this limit may be rejected. There is the potential to extend this contract for up to 24 months via either a funded extension or the method stated in section 4.2 of Annex A. 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 £1,300,320 including VAT, £1,083,600 excluding VAT. The maximum budget ‘core’ value of £1,300,320 including VAT, £1,083,600 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 £10,800,808 GBP including VAT, £8,640,646.40 excluding VAT. The registry should aim to address, where possible and as a priority, the recommendations and requirements of the NICE early evaluation assessment (EVA) and is expected to support the acquisition of relevant metrics. NICE EVA orthopaedics - https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/htg743/resources/evidence-generation-plan-for-robotassisted-surgery-for-orthopaedic-procedures-15306435181/chapter/1-Purpose-of-this-document and NICE EVA soft tissue - https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/htg742 The registry will continue to evolve in line with the uptake of robotic surgery working with Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), NHSE, National Equipment Tracking and Information System (NETIS) and NICE to ensure evidence generation, availability of data for analysis to highlight variations in care and poor outcomes including health inequities The aims of the national robotically assisted surgical registry are to: •Improve patient safety by tracking short- and long-term results of robotically assisted surgery •Capture key quality metrics aligned with the requirements of the NICE EVA recommendations (see section 9.3) •Support the standardisation of practice •Identify variation in surgical outcomes across hospitals •Provide outcome evidence to inform clinical guidelines, commissioning, and regulatory decisions •Facilitate research and innovation conducted by others in robotic surgical technologies and techniques •Understand the current provision and the equity of access to help inform future strategic decisions. •Make available, near real time data for authorities to evaluate the effectiveness of robotically assisted surgery compared with conventional techniques •Maintain close alignment with relevant NICE national guidance and quality standards throughout the establishment of the registry (see section 9.1 and appendix 1) •Provide timely and high-quality data analysis that compares providers of healthcare •Be clinically led •Link data where feasible and of value 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 •Use robust methodological and statistical techniques (see section 6.2.2) •Provide outputs tailored to a variety of different audiences Provide results in a timely, accessible and meaningful manner minimising the reporting delay and providing continual access to each stakeholder for their own data •Develop and maintain strong engagement with local clinicians, networks, commissioners, patients and their families and carers and charity and community support groups to drive improvements in services The project requirements are*: •A registry that captures prospective key data about robotically assisted surgery. This registry should be delivered by 2029 therefore, before the end of year three of the contract •The provision of information to address, where possible, the evidence gaps highlighted by the NICE medical technologies advisory committee concerning promising health technologies that have the potential to address national unmet need (see: Committee discussion) •To, during the first three years, design a self-sustaining style funding model. The funder and commissioner should be involved in all discussions with final sign-off approval. It is anticipated that at the end of the 3-year contract term the funding should switch from a publicly funded to a self-sustaining funding model. Given the pump priming publicly funded start up to this project, the expectation is that the current funders will be involved at all stages of the self-sustaining future model and be integrally involved as a primary stakeholder in the governance and oversight •With the set up and implementation of a self-sustaining financial model, the registry should consider a mechanism to enable the flow of data to robotic manufacturers named in the NICE EVA (or other safety programmes) and who contribute to the funding of the registry when the self-sustaining model is developed. Information for manufacturers may potentially include data for product and system improvement, safety and post-market surveillance, benchmarking and performance feedback, value demonstration, collaborative research and development. The supplier should avoid providing information to manufacturers that supports commercial messaging or market advantage and be confined to information relating to service user outcomes •That the registry’s design and governance arrangements consider the remit and existing data holdings of other similar registries and data collections, ensuring interoperability where appropriate and avoiding duplication of data collection, analytical outputs, or reporting functions •At the conclusion of the three-year contract term, the strategic intention is for the registry to mature into a continuous, prospective data collection underpinned by a sustainable, self- funding model. This transition must not dilute or displace the required system-level oversight. HQIP and NHSE will therefore remain central and non-negotiable partners within the governance framework for the registry throughout the contract and into any subsequent phase •The supplier will be required, to commit to this governance structure, including the roles of HQIP and NHSE, and to demonstrate how their proposed operating model will support effective accountability, assurance and long-term sustainability •The development of this registry including data platforms and tools within this contract are initially a proof of concept and future delivery arrangements are currently unknown. If a self-funding model is agreed and developed as defined in this section (3.2), it will form part of the contractual deliverable requirements, specifically adhering to clause 20, intellectual property, of the terms and conditions. Migration to a definitive platform under future commissioning arrangements may be necessary and the future portability of a technical solution must be considered and be freely available to transition between any outgoing and incoming providers, along with all other foreground IPR rights contained within clause 20 of the terms and conditions •There may be a clinical need to evolve and expand the metrics to capture additional metrics outside of the NICE EVA requirements. The supplier will need to closely collaborate with NICE to consider changes to metrics and mutually agreeable metric modifications. •The registry will continue to evolve in line with the uptake of robotic surgery working with MHRA, NHSE, NETIS and NICE to ensure evidence generation, availability of data for analysis to highlight variations in care and poor outcomes including health inequities *Please refer to section 13.2 for further potential additional requirements for this contract.

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

30 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (6)
Mandatory (1)
Compliance (9)
Technical (9)
Financial (5)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS6
--Pricing submissions must be made up to the maximum core value of £1,300,320 including VAT (£1,083,600 excluding VAT).
--Bidders must commit to the specified governance structure and demonstrate how their operating model supports accountability, assurance, and sustainability.
--Bidders must consider the future portability of their technical solution and its availability for transition.
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--No specific mandatory exclusion grounds are detailed in the provided text.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS9
--Must be capable of delivering a registry that captures prospective key data about robotically assisted surgery.
--Must be capable of delivering the registry by 2029.
--Must be capable of designing a self-sustaining funding model within the first three years, involving the funder and commissioner in all discussions with final sign-off approval.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS9
--Ability to develop and deliver a registry that captures prospective key data about robotically assisted surgery.
--Ability to design and implement a self-sustaining funding model.
--Ability to develop mechanisms for data flow to contributing robotic manufacturers.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS5
--Bids must not exceed the maximum total budget of £1,300,320 including VAT (£1,083,600 excluding VAT) for the initial 3-year core delivery period.
--All pricing submissions must be in regard to the 'core' value, not 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 a National Registry of Robotically Assisted Surgery is generally well-structured, with a clear description of objectives and a comprehensive list of technical and eligibility requirements. Key concerns relate to the availability of tender documents and the lack of specified evaluation criteria.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender specifies an open procedure and provides a CPV code. Deadlines are present, although the submission deadline relative to the contract start date could be tighter. No explicit mention of disputes or regulatory compliance issues is made within the provided text. The financial aspects and duration are clear.

Clarity80/100

The description of the registry's aims and project requirements is detailed and well-articulated. The links to NICE EVA provide specific context. The AI-extracted requirements are generally clear. However, the absence of evaluation criteria introduces ambiguity in how bids will be assessed.

Missing evaluation criteria specified.
Completeness70/100

Most basic information is present, including the estimated value, contract duration, and start date. However, the crucial tender documents are not available or summarized, significantly impacting completeness. While the core value and potential ceiling are detailed, some aspects of financing are tied to future models.

Tender documents are not available or summarized.
Fairness85/100

The tender provides access to the description and financial information. The criteria for eligibility and technical capability appear objective. The procedure is open, suggesting fair competition. The potential for extension and aspirational intent is clearly outlined, but specific details on how these might be exercised are linked to annexes not provided.

Practicality65/100

The tender outlines a contract start date and duration. Financing information is partially detailed, with a focus on a future self-sustaining model. While the existence of e-submission is implied by the platform, the process itself isn't detailed, and a URL for documents is missing. The core value for submissions is clear.

No e-submission process detailed.
Document URL missing.
Data Consistency90/100

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and deadlines are populated. The contract duration and start date are logical. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. The financial figures (core value, potential ceiling) are consistent within the description.

Sustainability50/100

The tender mentions the requirement for a self-sustaining funding model within three years, which touches on financial sustainability. However, there is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation as primary requirements, and the funding source is public (NHS).

No explicit green procurement or social criteria mentioned.
No explicit innovation focus mentioned.

Strengths

Clear description of objectives and project aims.
Detailed eligibility and technical capability requirements.
Clear distinction between core value and potential ceiling value.
Open procedure with proper classification (CPV).

Concerns

Missing evaluation criteria.
Tender documents are not accessible/summarized.
Lack of explicit green, social, or innovation criteria.

Recommendations

1. Provide clear evaluation criteria to bidders.
2. Make all relevant tender documents accessible and summarize their content.
3. Consider incorporating specific sustainability or innovation requirements if applicable.

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