Legal Compliance100/100
The tender follows an Open procedure, which is standard. However, the lack of specific mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided text is a significant omission that could impact legal compliance and fairness. The absence of full tender documents makes a comprehensive legal compliance assessment impossible.
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds detailed in the provided text.
•Absence of full tender documents prevents thorough legal compliance review.
Clarity40/100
The service description, target groups, pathways, and objectives are clearly articulated. The contract duration and extension options are also clear. However, the absence of evaluation criteria makes it unclear how bids will be assessed, and the 'Innovation Focus' characteristic lacks corresponding clear requirements.
•Missing evaluation criteria, leading to ambiguity on how bids will be assessed.
•Lack of specific requirements or assessment methods for the 'Innovation Focus' characteristic.
Completeness83/100
This tender is critically incomplete due to the complete absence of any attached documents. Without the full Invitation to Tender, detailed specifications, terms and conditions, and crucially, evaluation criteria, bidders cannot prepare a comprehensive and compliant submission. The lack of specific mandatory exclusion grounds also points to incompleteness.
•Complete absence of tender documents (0 total documents).
•Missing evaluation criteria, which are fundamental for a complete tender.
Fairness60/100
Without evaluation criteria, it is impossible to assess the fairness of the procurement process. The broad nature of some technical capability requirements, coupled with the lack of clear assessment methods, could lead to subjective evaluation, potentially undermining fair competition. The 'Innovation Focus' without defined assessment criteria also poses a fairness risk.
•Absence of evaluation criteria creates a risk of subjective and unfair assessment.
•Vague technical capability requirements without clear assessment methods could lead to inconsistent evaluation.
Practicality40/100
The service scope, target demographics, and geographical coverage (including digital provision) appear practical and well-conceived for addressing the identified needs. The focus on measurable outcomes (SDQ scores, placement data, service user feedback) is also practical for performance management. However, the lack of full documents makes it impractical for potential bidders to prepare a comprehensive response.
•Impractical for bidders to prepare a comprehensive response without full tender documents.
Data Consistency100/100
The information provided within the tender description and extracted requirements is consistent. There are no apparent contradictions in the stated objectives, scope, or requirements.
Sustainability25/100
While the service itself addresses social wellbeing, the tender documentation does not explicitly incorporate broader social or environmental sustainability criteria for the provider or service delivery methods. This represents a missed opportunity to leverage public procurement for wider sustainability goals.
•Absence of explicit social sustainability criteria beyond the core service.
•Absence of explicit environmental/green procurement criteria.