Provision of Health and Safety Consultancy

This tender for Health and Safety Consultancy services demonstrates good basic information and electronic submission, but suffers from significant data inconsistency regarding value and a lack of detailed evaluation criteria.

The tender defines an Open procedure with an appropriate CPV code and no reported disputes. Mandatory exclusion grounds are mentioned, indicating adherence to basic legal frameworks. However, the reveal date is missing, and the 'Liable Person' field is unpopulated, which are minor disclosure gaps.

The service description is clear, and high-level evaluation criteria (cost 60%, quality 30%, social value 10%) are stated. However, the tender lacks detailed sub-criteria for 'quality' and 'social value', making it difficult for bidders to understand how these aspects will be assessed. Performance conditions are also not clearly outlined.

Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location (NUTS code), is provided. Four documents are attached. However, the 'Liable Person' is missing and, critically, detailed sub-criteria for the evaluation of 'quality' and 'social value' are not provided in the summaries.

The tender supports electronic submission via MultiQuote and appears to have generic requirements, not tailored to a specific company. The estimated value is disclosed. However, the absence of detailed, objective sub-criteria for 'quality' and 'social value' significantly reduces the transparency and objectivity of the evaluation process, potentially impacting fairness.

Electronic submission is supported via the MultiQuote platform, and key dates such as contract start and duration are clearly specified. The estimated value is provided. While a direct document URL is not explicitly stated, documents are indicated as available.

While most dates are logical and no disputes are reported, there is a significant inconsistency in the estimated value. The main financial information states 372,705.00 EUR, whereas the document summaries repeatedly mention £310,587.50. This currency and value discrepancy is a critical data consistency issue.

The tender includes 'social value' as a 10% evaluation criterion, which is a positive aspect for social sustainability. However, there is no explicit focus on green procurement or innovation, and it is not EU funded, limiting its overall sustainability profile.