Tier 2 Child & Family Weight Management Service

This is a well-structured soft market testing exercise, clearly outlining its purpose and participation requirements, though formal procedure details are absent. It effectively engages the market for a future service, but lacks explicit sustainability criteria.

While this is a soft market testing exercise and not a formal tender, the absence of a defined 'Type' and 'Procedure' code is a formal gap. However, the CPV code is appropriate, and there are no reported disputes, indicating general compliance with pre-procurement best practices.

The tender is exceptionally clear about its purpose as a soft market testing exercise, with well-defined objectives and participation requirements. The lack of formal evaluation criteria or performance conditions is expected for this stage of market engagement.

The tender provides all essential information for market engagement, including basic details, deadlines, estimated value, and future contract duration. The primary gaps are the unpopulated formal 'Type' and 'Procedure' fields, which are less critical for a planning notice.

The soft market testing exercise demonstrates high fairness by providing full document access, disclosing the estimated value, utilizing an e-sourcing portal for equal access, and presenting generic requirements not tailored to any specific company.

The tender supports electronic submission via a dedicated e-sourcing portal and provides clear access to documents. While contract dates are for a future tender, the practicality for engaging in this soft market test is good. The automated check's 'No e-submission' flag appears incorrect based on the description.

Data is largely consistent across the provided information, with logical dates and no reported disputes. A minor currency discrepancy (EUR for a UK entity) is noted but does not significantly impact overall consistency.

The tender lacks explicit criteria for green procurement, social aspects beyond the service's inherent nature, or innovation focus. It does not leverage EU funding, which often drives higher sustainability standards.