Deliver Service for Justice Level 5 Certificate in Fire Investigation Training

This tender exhibits significant deficiencies in documentation and transparency, particularly concerning the absence of tender documents and evaluation criteria, which severely impede fair competition. The highly specific qualification requirement also raises concerns about potential tailoring.

The tender is for a below-threshold open competition, but the lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and the 'UK-based provider' requirement, while potentially permissible for below-threshold, could limit competition. The absence of tender documents and evaluation criteria also poses a significant risk to legal compliance regarding transparency and equal treatment.

The service description and technical capability requirements are clearly articulated, providing a good understanding of the desired training outcomes. However, the overall clarity of the procurement process is severely hampered by missing essential documentation.

The tender is critically incomplete. Key elements such as the estimated value, full tender documents, and evaluation criteria are missing, making it impossible for potential bidders to prepare a comprehensive and compliant submission. The absence of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds is also a notable omission.

Fairness is significantly compromised. The explicit requirement for the 'SFJ Awards Level 5 Certificate in Fire Investigation (RQF)' is highly specific and strongly suggests tailoring to a particular qualification and its accredited providers, severely limiting the pool of eligible bidders. Furthermore, the lack of evaluation criteria undermines transparency and equal treatment, as bidders cannot understand how their proposals will be judged.

From a bidder's perspective, the tender is highly impractical. Without any attached documents, detailed scope, or evaluation criteria, it is virtually impossible to formulate a meaningful and competitive bid. The authority's ability to conduct a robust evaluation is also questionable without defined criteria.

The provided data is internally consistent, but its limited scope prevents a full assessment of consistency with broader procurement documentation, which is absent.

No specific green procurement or social criteria are mentioned in the provided information, indicating a lack of focus on sustainability aspects in this tender.