Legal Compliance75/100
Legal compliance is generally good, with a clearly defined restricted procedure, appropriate CPV code, and explicit mention of adherence to UK construction regulations (CDM 2015, Building Safety Act 2022). Deadlines for the staged process appear reasonable. However, the absence of a 'reveal date' and explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the main tender information are minor transparency issues.
•Missing reveal date for the tender
•No mandatory exclusion grounds explicitly mentioned in the main tender information
Clarity65/100
The description of the scope of works is highly detailed and unambiguous, and the AI-extracted requirements are clear and comprehensive. However, the most significant clarity issue is the explicit flag 'No evaluation criteria specified'. While 'pass/fail criteria' are mentioned for the initial Capability Assessment, the full evaluation criteria for the formal tender stage are not detailed in the provided text, which is a major drawback for bidders.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified for the formal tender stage
Completeness70/100
The tender is largely complete, providing all basic information, estimated value, duration, location, and a list of documents. Requirements are well-defined. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria for the formal tender stage impacts completeness. Additionally, 'Liable Person' and procedure codes are empty.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified for the formal tender stage
•Missing 'Liable Person' and procedure codes
Fairness65/100
Full document access and disclosed value contribute positively to fairness. The requirements, while specific (e.g., 'thrust boring'), appear justified by the project's complex nature and do not seem tailored to a specific company. The primary fairness concern is the lack of transparent evaluation criteria for the formal tender stage. There's also ambiguity regarding e-submission, as 'No e-submission' is flagged despite enquiries being via the Atamis portal.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified for the formal tender stage
•Ambiguity regarding electronic submission (flagged 'No e-submission' despite Atamis portal for enquiries)
Practicality60/100
The use of the Atamis portal for enquiries suggests electronic interaction, which is practical. However, the 'Contract Start' date being identical to the 'Submission Deadline' (2026-03-27) is highly impractical and illogical, as it leaves no time for evaluation and award. No explicit document URL is provided, though documents are available.
•Contract start date is identical to the submission deadline, which is impractical
•Ambiguity regarding electronic submission
Data Consistency60/100
The tender shows no disputes or suspensions. However, several key fields are empty ('Liable Person', 'Type Code', 'Procedure Code', 'Missing reveal date'). The most significant inconsistency is the 'Contract Start' date being the same as the 'Submission Deadline', which is a logical contradiction in the procurement timeline.
•Contract start date is identical to the submission deadline, indicating a data inconsistency
•Empty fields: 'Liable Person', 'Type Code', 'Procedure Code'
Sustainability20/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•No green procurement criteria
•No social criteria