Removal of Bodies on Behalf of HM Coroner for Gloucestershire

This tender exhibits significant deficiencies in critical areas such as evaluation criteria and detailed selection requirements, which severely impact clarity, completeness, and fairness, despite a clear service description and electronic submission support.

The tender's legal compliance is moderate. While the procedure type and CPV code are correctly assigned, and no disputes are noted, the AI-extracted summaries explicitly state a lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and financial requirements. These are fundamental components of compliant public procurement, raising concerns about adherence to national regulations.

Clarity is poor due to the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria, which is a major flaw. While the service description and technical requirements are clear, bidders cannot understand how their proposals will be assessed. The lack of detailed selection criteria further compounds this issue.

The tender is notably incomplete. Key information such as evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and financial requirements are explicitly stated as missing or not detailed in the provided summaries. Additionally, one tender document failed to download, hindering full access to information.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the absence of evaluation criteria. Without clear criteria, bidders cannot prepare competitive proposals on an equal footing, and the award process lacks transparency. The failed document download also poses a barrier to equal access to information.

Practicality is moderate. Electronic submission is supported, and key dates (submission, contract start, duration) are clearly specified. However, the failed download of one document and the implied lack of comprehensive tender documents (beyond general information) reduce the practical ease for bidders to gather all necessary information.

Data consistency is good. Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field, missing codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure', and the mention of 'Divided into Parts' without further detail.

Sustainability aspects are very poor. The tender makes no mention of green procurement, social considerations, or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to incorporate broader public value objectives.