Lighthouse Centre Evaluation

This tender, currently in the planning stage, provides a clear description of the required evaluation services but is critically incomplete due to the absence of tender documents and evaluation criteria, making it impossible for potential bidders to prepare a compliant submission.

The tender outlines an open competition below the threshold, which is appropriate. However, the explicit absence of mandatory exclusion grounds is a significant legal oversight. The lack of comprehensive tender documents also prevents a full assessment of legal compliance.

The description of the Lighthouse Centre and the purpose of the evaluation is exceptionally clear and detailed. The technical requirements are also well-defined. However, the overall clarity for bidders is severely hampered by the complete absence of tender documents, which would contain crucial instructions and context. The CPV code appears mismatched with the service description.

The tender is critically incomplete. The most significant issue is the complete absence of any attached documents, which means essential information such as detailed scope, terms and conditions, submission instructions, and contract draft are missing. Furthermore, explicit evaluation criteria are not provided, and mandatory exclusion grounds are absent.

The 'Open' procedure promotes fairness. However, the absence of evaluation criteria makes it impossible to assess how bids will be fairly judged. The highly specific combination of technical expertise required (Barnahus Standards, NICE, Think Family, Trauma-Informed Care, EDI, and experience with CYP child sexual abuse) could significantly limit the pool of eligible bidders, potentially hindering fair competition, though it is relevant to the service.

From a bidder's perspective, the tender is currently impractical to respond to due to the complete lack of supporting documents. While the requirements themselves are clear, the absence of submission instructions, templates, and detailed scope makes a compliant bid impossible.

There is a minor inconsistency in the submission deadline time (16:00:00 vs 00:00:00). More significantly, the CPV code is inconsistent with the detailed service description.

The inclusion of 'Social Criteria' and the focus on Equality, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion within the evaluation framework are positive aspects contributing to social sustainability. No specific environmental or innovation criteria are mentioned.