Legal Compliance100/100
The tender's use of an open, competitive flexible procedure for a high-value framework is generally compliant. However, the explicit reservation of the right to refine award criteria post-publication is a significant legal concern, as award criteria should be fixed and transparent from the outset. The absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary is also unusual for a tender of this scale.
•Thames Water reserves the right to refine the award criteria, which compromises legal certainty and transparency.
•No mandatory exclusion grounds are explicitly stated in the provided tender information.
Clarity40/100
While the overall scope and lotting structure are reasonably described, the tender suffers from a severe lack of clarity due to the complete absence of tender documents and detailed requirements. The instruction stating the deadline for both asking for access to the PSQ and submitting it is the same date and time is highly confusing and contradictory.
•No documents attached, and no document content available, leading to a fundamental lack of clarity for bidders.
•The deadline for asking for access to the PSQ and submitting the PSQ being identical is contradictory and unclear.
Completeness83/100
The tender is critically incomplete. The absence of any tender documents, detailed technical specifications, explicit financial requirements, and comprehensive evaluation criteria means that potential bidders lack the essential information required to prepare a comprehensive and compliant submission. The 'extracted requirements' are too high-level for a tender of this magnitude.
•No documents attached, and no document content available, rendering the tender incomplete.
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria.
Fairness60/100
The fairness of this tender is significantly compromised. The lack of detailed documentation and clear evaluation criteria creates an uneven playing field. The reservation of the right to refine award criteria directly undermines transparency and fair competition. The inconsistent PSQ deadline also disadvantages bidders by not allowing sufficient time for review after gaining access.
•Thames Water reserves the right to refine the award criteria, which directly impacts fairness and transparency.
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria, preventing bidders from understanding how to compete fairly.
Practicality40/100
As presented, the tender is highly impractical for potential bidders. Without any tender documents, detailed technical requirements, or clear evaluation criteria, it is virtually impossible for suppliers to realistically assess their capabilities, prepare a compliant bid, or understand the full scope of work. The contradictory PSQ deadline further exacerbates practical difficulties, making compliance almost impossible.
•No documents attached, making it impractical for bidders to formulate a response.
•The inconsistent deadline for PSQ access and submission is impractical and likely impossible for bidders to meet.
Data Consistency100/100
The primary inconsistency lies in the submission requirements for the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PSQ). Stating that the deadline for both asking for access to the PSQ and submitting it is the same date and time represents a clear logical contradiction and an operational inconsistency.
•The deadline for asking for access to the PSQ and submitting the PSQ is stated as the same date and time, which is inconsistent and contradictory.
Sustainability0/100
The provided tender information lacks any specific details regarding environmental, social, or governance (ESG) criteria. For a framework agreement of this scale and duration, the absence of explicit sustainability considerations represents a missed opportunity to drive positive impact and align with modern procurement best practices.
•No explicit green procurement criteria are specified.
•No explicit social criteria are specified.