Suffolk Individual Placement and Support for Severe Mental Illness (IPS SMI)

This tender for Individual Placement and Support for Severe Mental Illness is generally well-structured, with clear basic information and a reasonable estimated value. However, it lacks detailed requirements and evaluation criteria, and the submission process could be more streamlined.

The tender adheres to open procedure and provides a CPV code. Deadlines are present, though the submission deadline might be considered short by some. No disputes are noted. Regulatory compliance is assumed based on the provided information.

The service description is clear and concise, outlining the purpose of the IPS SMI service. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria and detailed requirements for eligibility, technical, and financial capabilities reduces overall clarity.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are present. However, the lack of content in the tender documents and the absence of specific requirements for various sections (exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, submission) indicate a lack of completeness in the documentation provided.

The tender is an open procedure, and the estimated value is disclosed. The criteria for evaluation are not specified, which could impact fairness. There is no indication of requirements tailored to specific companies, suggesting a generally fair approach. E-procurement is mentioned as a characteristic.

The tender is marked as 'E-Procurement', but the 'Checks' section notes 'No e-submission', which is contradictory and raises concerns about the practicality of the submission process. The contract start date and duration are specified. Financing information is not detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided appear logical within the context of a tender process.

The tender does not explicitly mention green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.