Tenders

Access for All Rail Programme - Tranche 5

Open
Deadline
24 days left
March 27, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Other
Reference
017802-2026
Value
£24,064,800
Location
Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
Published
February 23, 2026
CPV Code
Project Timeline

Tender Published

February 27, 2026

Deadline for Questions

March 20, 2026

Submission Deadline

March 27, 2026

Contract Start Date

November 05, 2026

Buyer IntelligencePRO
🔒
Unlock Buyer Intelligence
See spending patterns, preferred procedures, and more.
Upgrade to Professional →
Budget
£24,064,800
Duration
53 months
Location
Greater Manchester
Type
Other
75
Quality Score/100
Good

Original Tender Description

TfGM seeks to establish a contract for rail station enhancement projects, including option selection reports, outline and detailed design, and construction. These stations will be funded under the DfT's CRSTS. The project involves up to three Access for All solutions for stations in Greater Manchester: Broadbottom, Hall 'ith Wood, and Moorside (Tranche 5). The AfA Projects include new lifts, footbridges, ramp improvements, and upgraded power supply. Potential for similar requirements at Hattersley and other stations.

Risk Analysis

Please log in to use risk analysis.

Login

Win Strategy

Please log in to access winning strategy recommendations.

Login

Competitors

Upgrade to see which companies are likely to bid on this tender, based on historical procurement data.

Login

Requirements & Qualifications

19 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (6)
Mandatory (1)
Compliance (1)
Technical (10)
Financial (1)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS6
--Bids must be provided in English, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, and Lithuanian.
--The tender uses the Competitive Flexible Procedure.
--The project involves "Stage One" (design phases) and "Stage Two" (construction).
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--No specific mandatory exclusion grounds are detailed in the provided text.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS1
--Bidders must be capable of providing services in English, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, and Lithuanian.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS10
--Experience in completing option selection reports (PACE ES3/OSR - Refresh).
--Experience in completing outline design (ES4 Form A).
--Experience in completing detailed design (ES5 Form B).
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS1
--No specific financial requirements are detailed in the provided text.

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

No processed documents available for this tender.

Documents will appear here once they are downloaded and analyzed.

75
Good

Tender Quality Score

This tender for rail station enhancements is well-structured with clear technical requirements and a disclosed budget. However, it lacks explicit evaluation criteria and details on e-submission, impacting its overall practicality and fairness.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender appears to comply with general procurement principles, including a clear CPV code and a reasonable submission deadline relative to the contract start date. The procedure type is not specified, which is a minor omission. No disputes are reported.

Procedure type not specified
Clarity80/100

The description of the project, including the scope of works for specific stations and potential future requirements, is detailed. Technical requirements are well-defined, outlining necessary experience in design and construction phases for rail station enhancements. However, evaluation criteria are missing.

Missing evaluation criteria
Completeness70/100

Most essential information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, contract duration, and start date. However, the content of the tender documents is not accessible, and the 'Liable Person' field is empty.

No document content available
Liable Person field is empty
Fairness85/100

The tender discloses the estimated value and outlines objective technical requirements. The Competitive Flexible Procedure suggests a degree of flexibility. However, the lack of explicit evaluation criteria and the absence of information regarding e-submission could be perceived as less transparent.

Missing evaluation criteria
No e-submission details
Practicality65/100

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the absence of information regarding e-submission and the lack of accessible document content hinder practical engagement for potential bidders.

No e-submission
No document content available
Data Consistency90/100

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated logically. There are no reported disputes or suspensions, indicating good data integrity.

Sustainability50/100

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, innovation, or EU funding, which are common in modern tenders. This suggests a lack of focus on these areas.

Not green procurement
No social criteria

Strengths

Clear and detailed description of project scope and technical requirements
Estimated value and contract duration/start date are specified
CPV code provided
No reported disputes

Concerns

Missing evaluation criteria
No document content available
Lack of e-submission details
No explicit sustainability or innovation focus

Recommendations

1. Provide clear evaluation criteria to enhance transparency.
2. Make tender documents fully accessible and specify e-submission procedures.

AI Scoring Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Complete quality score analysis
Detailed sub-score breakdown
Strengths & concerns insights
Strategic recommendations

No credit card required • Setup in 2 minutes

Add to Pipeline