UK Leisure Framework 2026-2034

This tender for a large UK Leisure Framework demonstrates good foundational information and document availability but suffers from critical omissions regarding evaluation criteria and a lack of e-submission, impacting fairness and clarity.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code appropriately, and there are no reported disputes. Mandatory exclusion grounds and non-collusion declarations are included. However, the tender lacks a specified reveal date, and the AI summaries do not explicitly detail general eligibility or financial requirements, which could be a compliance gap if not fully elaborated in the complete documents.

The tender description and technical capability requirements are clear. However, a significant clarity issue is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria. Additionally, the summaries do not explicitly state general eligibility or financial requirements, which hinders a comprehensive understanding for potential bidders.

Most basic information, including title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, duration, and location, is provided. All 10 documents are attached and summarized. The major deficiency is the absence of defined evaluation criteria, which is a critical component for a complete tender package. General eligibility and financial requirements are also not explicitly stated in the summaries.

Document access appears to be full, and the estimated value is disclosed. The framework is divided into parts, which can promote broader participation. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises fairness and transparency, as bidders cannot objectively understand how their proposals will be judged. The absence of e-submission also creates a barrier to equal access for all potential bidders.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. The primary practicality concern is the lack of electronic submission support, which is a significant drawback for a large-scale framework in 2026. While documents are available, a direct document URL is not explicitly provided.

Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical and consistent. Minor inconsistencies include missing fields for 'Liable Person', 'Type Code', 'Procedure Code', and the tender's reveal date.

The tender shows no explicit focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation criteria. It is not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.