Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines a 'Competitive Flexible, Two Stage, Light Touch Regime, Open Tender Process', which aligns with UK procurement practices for services of this nature. However, the 'Type' field states 'Restricted', creating a significant contradiction. The CPV code is correctly assigned, and the submission period is ample. The missing reveal date is a minor compliance issue.
•Contradiction in tender procedure type ('Restricted' vs 'Open Tender Process')
•Missing reveal date
Clarity60/100
The description of the academy, service scope, and general requirements (AI-extracted) are clear and well-documented. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria makes it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed, significantly reducing overall clarity.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified
Completeness65/100
Basic information, value, and duration are well-defined. Requirements are outlined, but the crucial evaluation criteria are missing, which is a major gap. One of the four tender documents also failed to download, and some basic fields like 'Liable Person' are empty.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified
•One tender document failed to download
Fairness55/100
Full document access is provided free of charge via an online portal, and the value is disclosed. However, the lack of specified, objective evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as it introduces subjectivity into the assessment process. The clause reserving the right to consider an insourced solution further highlights this potential for non-transparent decision-making.
•Lack of specified, objective evaluation criteria
Practicality65/100
A document URL is provided, and the contract start date and duration are clear. The automated check flags 'No e-submission', which contradicts the instruction to register on an 'in-tendhost' portal, typically used for electronic submissions. This ambiguity creates a practical hurdle for bidders.
•Ambiguity regarding electronic submission (automated check flags 'No e-submission' despite portal URL)
Data Consistency70/100
The most significant inconsistency is the contradiction between the 'Type: Restricted' field and the description stating 'Open Tender Process'. Other dates and financial figures are largely consistent, though the 'Liable Person' field is empty.
•Contradiction in tender type ('Restricted' vs 'Open Tender Process')
Sustainability30/100
The tender makes no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects beyond serving the school community, or innovation as key evaluation or contractual criteria. This indicates a low focus on sustainability considerations.
•Lack of explicit sustainability, social, or innovation criteria