Legal Compliance100/100
The tender is for a below-threshold open competition, which is appropriate for the estimated value. However, the complete absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and explicit evaluation criteria is a significant legal compliance issue. The lack of any attached tender documents (ITT, SOW, contract terms) means bidders cannot fully understand the legal framework or contractual obligations.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds.
•Missing complete tender documentation (e.g., Invitation to Tender, Scope of Work, Draft Contract).
Clarity40/100
The description of the required consultancy services is generally clear regarding the subject matter (NICOR, NCAP annual reports, specific analytical and graphical skills). The registration process is also clearly outlined. However, without full tender documents, details regarding the project methodology, specific deliverables structure, reporting lines, and contractual terms remain unclear.
•Lack of detailed project methodology, deliverables structure, and contractual terms due to missing documents.
Completeness83/100
This tender is critically incomplete. The statement 'DOCUMENTS (0 total)' and 'No document content available' indicates a fundamental flaw. Essential components such as the full scope of work, detailed instructions to bidders, draft contract, and crucially, the evaluation criteria, are entirely missing. This makes it impossible for potential bidders to prepare a comprehensive and compliant submission.
•Complete absence of all tender documents (ITT, SOW, draft contract, etc.).
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria.
Fairness60/100
The fairness of this procurement is highly questionable. The requirement for the bidding organisation to be UK-based, while potentially justifiable for public sector contracts, limits competition. More significantly, the highly specific technical requirements, such as 'in-depth understanding of the care provided by the individual sub-specialty domains of the NCAP,' 'quality improvement metrics used,' 'analytical outputs, and the methods used to provide these,' and the ability to 'ensure consistency with previous years’ reports,' strongly suggest that the tender may be tailored for an incumbent supplier or a very limited pool of highly specialized entities. The absence of evaluation criteria further compromises the transparency and fairness of the selection process.
•Highly specific technical requirements (e.g., in-depth NCAP knowledge, consistency with previous reports) that may unduly restrict competition or favor an incumbent, indicating potential tailoring.
•Geographical restriction (UK-based) limits competition.
Practicality40/100
From a bidder's perspective, the tender is highly impractical due to the complete lack of supporting documentation. While the registration process is clear, preparing a meaningful and compliant bid without a detailed scope of work, terms and conditions, or evaluation criteria is virtually impossible. This will likely deter potential bidders or lead to submissions based on assumptions.
•Impractical for bidders to prepare a comprehensive proposal due to missing tender documents.
Data Consistency100/100
There is a minor inconsistency in the project reference numbers provided. The 'Reference' in the basic information (001225-2026) differs from the 'Project Reference' provided for registration (C411255). All other provided data points appear consistent.
•Inconsistent project reference numbers (001225-2026 vs C411255).
Sustainability0/100
The tender information does not include any explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. This indicates a lack of focus on broader sustainability objectives, which are increasingly important in public procurement.
•Absence of green procurement, social, or innovation criteria.