Skip to main content
Tenders

Campus Suited Lock System

Open
Deadline
16 days left
April 13, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Open Procedure
Reference
021082-2026
Value
£100,000
Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom
Published
March 20, 2026
CPV Code
Project Timeline

Tender Published

March 09, 2026

Deadline for Questions

April 06, 2026

Submission Deadline

April 13, 2026

Contract Start Date

May 05, 2026

Buyer IntelligencePRO
🔒
Unlock Buyer Intelligence
See spending patterns, preferred procedures, and more.
Upgrade to Professional →
Budget
£100,000
Duration
4 months
Location
Merseyside
Type
Open Procedure
75
Quality Score/100
Good

Original Tender Description

The replacement of all locks within both the Redmond building and the Cherie Booth Building, with the option to extend this contract to encompass further building in the following three years.

Risk Analysis

Please log in to use risk analysis.

Login

Win Strategy

Please log in to access winning strategy recommendations.

Login

Competitors

Upgrade to see which companies are likely to bid on this tender, based on historical procurement data.

Login

Requirements & Qualifications

5 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (1)
Mandatory (1)
Compliance (1)
Technical (1)
Financial (1)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS1
--[No specific requirements provided in the tender document]
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--[No specific requirements provided in the tender document]
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS1
--[No specific requirements provided in the tender document]
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS1
--[No specific requirements provided in the tender document]
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS1
--[No specific requirements provided in the tender document]

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

No processed documents available for this tender.

Documents will appear here once they are downloaded and analyzed.

75
Good

Tender Quality Score

This tender for a campus lock system is generally well-structured with clear basic information and a disclosed value. However, it lacks detailed requirements and evaluation criteria, impacting completeness and clarity.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender appears to comply with basic legal requirements, including a clear procedure and CPV code. Deadlines are provided, though their reasonableness is debatable given the lack of detailed documentation. No disputes are reported.

Clarity80/100

The description of the work is clear, specifying the buildings involved and the potential for contract extension. However, the absence of specific eligibility, technical, financial, and submission requirements significantly reduces overall clarity.

No specific eligibility requirements provided.
No specific technical capability requirements provided.
Completeness70/100

Essential information such as title, reference, organization, and estimated value is present. The contract duration and start date are specified. However, the lack of detailed requirements and accessible tender document content limits completeness.

No document content available for review.
Missing evaluation criteria.
Fairness85/100

The tender is open, and the value is disclosed, promoting fairness. The deadlines appear reasonable for an open competition. The lack of specific tailored requirements suggests a fair approach, but the absence of detailed criteria makes objective comparison difficult.

Practicality65/100

The contract start date and duration are specified. However, the absence of information regarding e-submission and financing details, along with the lack of accessible tender documents, hinders practical application for potential bidders.

No e-submission specified.
No financing information provided.
Data Consistency90/100

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, and dates are populated logically. The tender is active with no reported suspensions or disputes, indicating good data consistency.

Sustainability50/100

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, suggesting a limited emphasis on sustainability criteria.

Not green procurement.
No social criteria.

Strengths

Clear title, reference, and organization.
Disclosed estimated value.
Specified CPV code and NUTS code.
Contract duration and start date provided.

Concerns

Lack of detailed requirements (eligibility, technical, financial, submission).
No tender document content available for review.
Missing evaluation criteria.
No e-submission specified.

Recommendations

1. Provide detailed tender documents with clear evaluation criteria.
2. Specify e-submission procedures and any financing information.
3. Consider incorporating sustainability or innovation aspects if applicable.

AI Scoring Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Complete quality score analysis
Detailed sub-score breakdown
Strengths & concerns insights
Strategic recommendations

No credit card required • Setup in 2 minutes

New Service

Want us to handle this tender?

Our procurement experts prepare everything. Proven to work — you review, approve, and submit.

~1hYour time only
80%+80%+
$0Upfront
See full comparison
Without TaaSWith TaaS
40-80 hrs
Preparation time
~1 hr
Your time only
15-25%
Average win rate
80%+
Win rate
Risk of errors
Manual review
Expert QA
Compliance check
You do all
Handle everything
We do all
End-to-end service
Let's Win This Tender
Pay only when you win · 400+ companies trust us
Or do it yourself

Add to Pipeline