Legal Compliance100/100
The tender follows an open procedure, which is generally compliant. However, the absence of full tender documents prevents verification of adherence to all legal requirements, particularly regarding detailed exclusion and selection criteria. The lack of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds is a notable omission.
•No mandatory exclusion grounds are explicitly stated in the provided tender information, which is a fundamental requirement for legal compliance.
•Absence of full tender documentation makes it impossible to verify compliance with all procurement regulations.
Clarity40/100
The service description, target group, and lotting structure are clearly articulated. Instructions for submission and queries via specific portals are also clear. However, the 'extracted requirements' lack the detailed context that full tender documents would provide, limiting overall clarity for bidders.
•Lack of access to full tender documentation hinders complete understanding of detailed requirements, specifications, and evaluation criteria.
Completeness83/100
This tender is critically incomplete. While basic information and a high-level service description are provided, the explicit absence of any actual tender documents (e.g., detailed specifications, terms and conditions, evaluation criteria, contract drafts) means bidders cannot prepare a comprehensive submission.
•Critical absence of actual tender documents (specifications, terms, evaluation criteria, contract drafts).
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria, which are essential for bidders to understand how their proposals will be judged.
Fairness60/100
The open procedure and lotting structure generally promote fairness by allowing regional participation. However, the vagueness of the 'suitably qualified' eligibility requirement and the absence of explicit evaluation criteria raise significant concerns about transparency and the potential for subjective assessment, which could undermine equal treatment of bidders.
•Vague eligibility requirement ('suitably qualified') without further definition could lead to subjective interpretation and unequal treatment.
•Absence of explicit evaluation criteria raises concerns about transparency and the ability for bidders to understand how to submit a competitive and compliant offer.
Practicality40/100
The division into three lots is practical for regional service delivery. The use of specific portals for submissions and queries streamlines process management. However, the fundamental lack of tender documents makes it impractical for any supplier to prepare a meaningful and compliant bid.
•Bidders cannot practically prepare a comprehensive and compliant submission without access to the full tender documentation.
•The requirement to register on a 'Central Digital Platform' in addition to using EastMidsTenders and ProContract for queries might add unnecessary complexity for bidders.
Data Consistency100/100
The provided information is internally consistent regarding the service description, lotting structure, and timeline. The contract duration aligns with the proposed maximum term.
Sustainability25/100
The tender's core purpose, supporting people with health conditions/disabilities into employment, inherently aligns with social sustainability goals. However, no explicit environmental or broader social/ethical sustainability criteria are mentioned within the procurement process itself.
•No explicit environmental or broader social/ethical sustainability criteria are mentioned in the procurement requirements.