Legal Compliance100/100
Based on the provided summary, the tender appears to follow a standard open procedure. However, the lack of actual tender documents means that specific legal compliance with national procurement regulations cannot be fully verified. The statement 'No specific mandatory exclusion grounds are mentioned in the provided tender information' is a significant concern, as these are typically legally required.
•Absence of full tender documents makes it impossible to verify compliance with all legal requirements.
•Lack of specific mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary is concerning, as these are typically legally required.
Clarity40/100
The description of the service and the multi-lot structure is reasonably clear at a high level. The financial envelopes for each lot are also clearly stated. However, the 'extracted requirements' are very high-level and lack the granular detail typically found in a full tender, which would be essential for bidders to understand the exact scope and expectations.
•High-level nature of 'extracted requirements' lacks sufficient detail for bidders to fully understand the scope and technical specifications.
•Absence of full tender documents means detailed specifications, performance indicators, and contractual terms are unknown.
Completeness83/100
The provided information is highly incomplete for a full tender. Key elements such as detailed specifications, evaluation criteria, comprehensive submission instructions, and contractual terms are entirely missing. The 'DOCUMENTS (0 total)' flag is the most significant indicator of incompleteness.
•Complete absence of tender documents (specifications, terms and conditions, forms, etc.).
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria, which are crucial for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed.
Fairness80/100
The multi-lot structure allowing bids for 1 to 8 lots promotes broader participation and competition, which is positive for fairness. However, the lack of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria creates a significant risk of unfairness, as bidders cannot adequately prepare or understand the basis of award. The 'Innovation Focus' without clear definition or evaluation methodology could also be subjective. The emphasis on 'working in tandem with local Integrated Neighbourhood Teams' could potentially favor incumbent providers or those with pre-existing relationships, raising a concern about potential tailoring, though this cannot be definitively confirmed without full documents.
•Absence of detailed evaluation criteria makes it impossible to assess the fairness of the evaluation process.
•High-level requirements could lead to subjective interpretation during evaluation.
Practicality40/100
The concept of procuring an integrated NHS 111 service across multiple lots is practical for service delivery. However, the practical execution of the procurement process is severely hampered by the lack of documentation. Bidders cannot practically prepare a comprehensive bid without the full tender package.
•Bidders cannot practically prepare a compliant and competitive bid without access to full tender documents, detailed specifications, and evaluation criteria.
•The current lack of documentation makes the procurement process itself impractical for bidders, despite a reasonable service commencement lead time.
Data Consistency100/100
The financial information shows a high degree of numerical consistency between the overall estimated value in EUR (€106,826,000) and the sum of the individual lot values in GBP (£106,835,000), suggesting a direct numerical equivalence or a near 1:1 conversion rate was used for the overall estimate. The contract duration and extension options are also consistent. The lot structure and descriptions are internally consistent.
•The estimated value is presented in EUR, while individual lot values are in GBP, which, while numerically consistent, introduces a minor currency presentation difference.
Sustainability25/100
The provided information does not include any specific sustainability (environmental, social, or economic) criteria or requirements. The automated check results also flag 'Not green procurement' and 'No social criteria.'
•Absence of explicit sustainability criteria (environmental, social, ethical considerations).
•No mention of green procurement or social criteria, which are increasingly important in public tenders.