Legal Compliance100/100
The tender specifies an 'Open procedure' and includes basic information like title, reference, organization, and estimated value. However, the provided information lacks detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and financial requirements, which are typically essential for legal compliance in public procurement. Most critically, the absence of evaluation criteria, as flagged by automated checks, is a major legal compliance issue for an open tender.
•Missing detailed mandatory exclusion grounds for bidders.
•Missing detailed eligibility requirements beyond 'Subject Matter Expert'.
Clarity40/100
The project description and the list of technical capabilities are clear and well-defined, outlining the scope of work effectively. However, the overall clarity for a potential bidder is severely compromised by the complete absence of any tender documents, which would contain the full terms of reference, detailed specifications, and submission instructions.
•Complete absence of full tender documentation (e.g., ITT, specifications, contract terms), leading to significant ambiguity for bidders.
•Lack of detailed submission instructions beyond the deadline.
Completeness83/100
This tender is critically incomplete due to the explicit statement 'DOCUMENTS (0 total)' and 'No document content available'. Essential components such as full terms of reference, detailed evaluation criteria, specific financial requirements, and contract terms are entirely missing from the provided information, making it impossible for bidders to prepare a comprehensive and compliant offer.
•Absence of any tender documents (e.g., Invitation to Tender, Statement of Work, Draft Contract).
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria, which are crucial for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed.
Fairness60/100
While an 'Open procedure' generally promotes fairness, the lack of detailed evaluation criteria and comprehensive documentation creates a significant risk of an unfair procurement process. Without clear, pre-defined criteria, the evaluation could become subjective. The requirement for understanding specific DfE training modules and a very recent strategy ('Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life strategy' published in July 2025) could potentially favor incumbent suppliers or those with very close ties to the Department for Education, potentially limiting fair competition.
•Absence of detailed evaluation criteria, which can lead to subjective assessment and an unfair process.
•Specific knowledge requirements (DfE training modules, recent DfE strategy) could potentially limit competition or favor specific bidders if not clearly defined how this expertise will be assessed and demonstrated by new entrants.
Practicality40/100
The listed technical requirements are practical for the nature of the service. However, the procurement process itself is highly impractical for bidders due to the complete lack of tender documents. Bidders cannot realistically prepare a comprehensive, competitive, and compliant offer without access to the full terms of reference, detailed specifications, and evaluation methodology.
•Highly impractical for bidders to prepare a comprehensive and compliant offer without full tender documentation.
•Lack of detailed instructions on how to submit a bid and what content it should include.
Data Consistency100/100
The information provided within the tender snippet is internally consistent. The issue lies not in inconsistency, but in the severe lack of comprehensive data required for a complete tender.
Sustainability25/100
No specific green procurement or social criteria are mentioned in the provided tender information. The 'Innovation Focus' is a positive characteristic, but it does not inherently address environmental or social sustainability.
•Absence of specific green procurement criteria.
•Absence of specific social criteria.