Legal Compliance60/100
The tender correctly identifies the procedure type and CPV code under the Procurement Act 2023. However, the absence of specific mandatory exclusion grounds is a significant legal omission. The missing reveal date and discrepancies in value and duration also impact legal clarity and compliance.
•Missing reveal date
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds mentioned
Clarity40/100
While the service purpose is clear, the tender critically lacks specified evaluation criteria, making it impossible for bidders to understand assessment methods. Significant discrepancies in estimated value (£5M vs €6M) and contract duration (48 months vs 6 years) further introduce ambiguity.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Discrepancies in estimated value and contract duration
Completeness40/100
Basic information is present, but the tender is incomplete due to the explicit absence of evaluation criteria, specific financial requirements, and mandatory exclusion grounds. The failure of one listed document to download also indicates incomplete access to tender information.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No specific financial requirements mentioned
Fairness35/100
Fairness is severely compromised by the complete lack of evaluation criteria, which introduces subjectivity and reduces transparency. The absence of e-submission creates an unnecessary barrier to equal access for potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No e-submission
Practicality45/100
The lack of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback. While a contract start date is provided, the inconsistent duration and limited financing details (with discrepancies) reduce overall practicality for bidders.
•No e-submission
•Discrepancy in contract duration
Data Consistency30/100
The tender exhibits critical data inconsistencies, with direct contradictions in the estimated value (€6M vs £5M) and contract duration (48 months vs 6 years). The 'Liable Person' field is also empty, indicating poor data management.
•Inconsistent estimated value (€ vs £)
•Inconsistent contract duration (48 months vs 6 years)
Sustainability25/100
The tender explicitly lacks any integration of green procurement, specific social criteria for bidders (beyond the core service), or an innovation focus. This indicates a missed opportunity to leverage procurement for broader sustainability goals.
•Not green procurement
•No specific social criteria for bidders