Legal Compliance100/100
The tender outlines a below-threshold open competition, which is a standard procedure. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria and the lack of attached tender documents (e.g., preliminary specification) are significant legal compliance issues, as bidders cannot adequately prepare or understand the basis of award. The mandatory site visit and DBS vetting are generally compliant requirements.
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria for bid assessment.
•Referenced 'preliminary specification attached' is not provided, hindering understanding of technical requirements.
Clarity40/100
The project description and scope are generally clear, including the type of contract (JCT) and preliminary items. However, the clarity is severely undermined by the absence of the referenced 'preliminary specification,' which is crucial for understanding the Alumasc system requirements. The contradictory submission dates also create significant confusion.
•Lack of the referenced 'preliminary specification attached' makes technical requirements unclear.
•Contradictory submission dates (Feb 6 vs. Feb 9) cause confusion.
Completeness83/100
The tender is incomplete due to the absence of critical documents, most notably the 'preliminary specification,' which is essential for bidders to formulate a compliant and competitive offer. The complete lack of evaluation criteria also renders the tender incomplete from a bidder's perspective.
•Absence of the 'preliminary specification attached' as referenced in the description.
•Missing comprehensive evaluation criteria for tender assessment.
Fairness60/100
Fairness is a significant concern. The explicit naming of RAS Ltd as the 'client's preferred partner/subcontractor' due to 'knowledge and history' strongly suggests potential tailoring or bias, despite the allowance for alternatives. Mandating a specific brand (Alumasc system) without clear justification or allowance for equivalents can also restrict competition. The lack of evaluation criteria further compromises fairness and transparency.
•Explicitly naming 'RAS Ltd' as the client's 'preferred partner/subcontractor' raises concerns about potential tailoring and bias.
•Mandating the 'Alumasc system' without clear justification or allowing for equivalent solutions may restrict competition.
Practicality40/100
The tender includes practical elements such as a mandatory site visit to ensure bidders understand conditions, and the use of provisional sums and contingency for unforeseen works. The requirement for DBS vetting is also practical for the project environment. However, the requirement for physical submission rather than e-submission is less practical in modern procurement.
•Requirement for physical tender submission rather than electronic submission is less efficient and practical.
Data Consistency100/100
There is a critical data inconsistency regarding the submission deadline, with two different dates provided (February 6 and February 9). Furthermore, the description references an 'attached' preliminary specification, but no documents are provided, indicating an inconsistency between the text and the actual tender package.
•Contradictory submission dates (February 6, 2026, and February 9, 2026) create significant confusion.
•Inconsistency between the description referencing 'preliminary specification attached' and the absence of any attached documents.
Sustainability0/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. This indicates a missed opportunity to leverage public procurement for broader sustainability objectives.
•Lack of explicit green procurement criteria.
•Absence of social criteria.