Birmingham Virtual School Educational Wellbeing Service

This tender for an Educational Well-Being Service is clear in its purpose and scope but suffers from significant gaps in documentation, particularly the absence of evaluation criteria and detailed requirements, which impacts clarity, completeness, and fairness. While basic information is well-provided and data is consistent, the lack of e-submission and explicit sustainability criteria are areas for improvement.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code appropriately, and there are no disputes. However, the absence of a tender reveal date, an empty 'Liable Person' field, and critically, the lack of specified evaluation criteria are notable compliance gaps.

The service description is clear and unambiguous, outlining the scope and target beneficiaries effectively. However, the AI-extracted requirements are high-level and lack detail on how capabilities will be assessed, and the complete absence of evaluation criteria significantly hinders clarity for potential bidders.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, and duration are provided, and documents are attached. Nevertheless, the tender is incomplete due to the critical omission of evaluation criteria and detailed requirements for mandatory exclusion grounds and financial capability.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the requirements appear generic, not tailored to a specific company. However, the absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises transparency and objectivity, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be judged. The lack of e-submission also limits equal access.

Contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. Explicit document URLs are not provided in the summary, though documents are indicated as available.

Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical and largely consistent, with only a minor discrepancy between the 'Contract Start' field and the description's start date (02 vs 03 September). The 'Liable Person' field remains empty.

While the service itself addresses a significant social need (supporting vulnerable children), the tender documentation does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, broader social clauses for suppliers, or innovation-focused criteria. This represents a missed opportunity to embed sustainability into the procurement process.