The North Area Council Advice & Support Service

This tender exhibits significant deficiencies in completeness, clarity, and fairness due to the absence of critical information such as evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and specific financial requirements, alongside a notable data inconsistency.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly. However, the absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and, critically, evaluation criteria are significant legal compliance deficiencies. The missing reveal date also makes it difficult to fully assess the reasonableness of the submission period from a legal standpoint. The lack of e-submission is a modern compliance concern.

The service description and technical requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the overall clarity of the tender process is severely hampered by the explicit absence of evaluation criteria, financial requirements, and mandatory exclusion grounds. The contradiction between 'Divided into Parts' and 'single provider' also introduces ambiguity.

Basic information like title, reference, organization, value, duration, and location are provided. However, the tender is significantly incomplete due to the explicit absence of mandatory exclusion grounds, specific financial requirements, and, most importantly, evaluation criteria. The summaries of the attached documents do not indicate these critical details are present elsewhere.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the technical requirements appear generic. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria makes the tender process highly opaque and inherently unfair, as bidders cannot understand how their proposals will be judged. The lack of e-submission also creates potential barriers to equal access for all potential bidders.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission support ('No e-submission') is a significant practical drawback, increasing administrative burden for bidders and the contracting authority. A direct document URL is not explicitly provided, which could slightly hinder ease of access.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, there is a direct contradiction between the 'Characteristics: Divided into Parts' and the 'Eligibility Requirements: Must be a single provider capable of undertaking the entire service.' This inconsistency needs clarification. Minor fields like 'Liable Person' and specific procedure codes are also unpopulated.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement criteria, social clauses for the provider (beyond the inherent social nature of the service itself), or an innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards.