Child Health Information Services - North East and Yorkshire and Cumbria

This tender for Child Health Information Services is generally well-structured with a clear description and objective criteria, but lacks specific details on evaluation and sustainability aspects.

The tender adheres to open procedure and mentions the Procurement Act 2023, indicating regulatory awareness. The CPV code is provided. However, the absence of explicit mention of dispute resolution mechanisms and the potential for a short submission window (though not flagged as a rule violation here) slightly temper the score. The mention of specific legislation (Procurement Act 2023) and exclusion of others (Provider Selection Regime 2023, Public Contracts Regulations 2015) is clear.

The description of the service and its aims is clear. The use of an e-tendering portal is well-explained, including contact details for support. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria leaves a significant gap in understanding how tenders will be assessed.

Basic information such as title, organization, estimated value, duration, and deadlines are present. The CPV code is provided. However, the crucial tender documentation content is not available, and the evaluation criteria are missing, impacting overall completeness.

The tender is an open procedure, accessible via a free e-tendering portal, promoting broad participation. The estimated value is disclosed. The requirements, as presented, appear objective, focusing on capability rather than specific company attributes. The single lot approach is justified as not suitable for lotting.

The tender mandates e-submission via the Atamis portal, which is a positive step. The contract start date and duration are specified. However, the 'no document content available' issue hinders practical assessment of the full scope and requirements. Financing information is not explicitly detailed.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated. The status is 'active'. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided are logical within the context of a tender process.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the provided information. The tender is not indicated as EU funded. This lack of focus on sustainability aspects results in a lower score.