Legal Compliance100/100
The tender correctly identifies the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Light Touch Regime for social services, which is appropriate. Mandatory exclusion grounds are stated. However, the absence of full tender documents and, crucially, evaluation criteria, makes it impossible to verify full legal compliance and raises significant concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the procurement process.
•Absence of full tender documents, preventing verification of all legal requirements.
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria, which is a fundamental requirement for a legally compliant and transparent procurement.
Clarity40/100
The overall purpose of the framework, its duration, and the target group (Adults with Learning Disabilities and/or Autism in Norfolk) are clearly stated. However, the practical details of service delivery, specifically the 'Pathways (sub-lots)', remain undefined due to the lack of a service specification. This significantly hinders bidders' understanding of what is required.
•Lack of a detailed service specification, leaving 'Pathways (sub-lots)' and specific service requirements unclear.
•General nature of eligibility and technical requirements without supporting documentation.
Completeness83/100
The tender information provided is highly incomplete. Critical documents such as the full tender documentation, service specification, and evaluation criteria are entirely missing. Furthermore, specific financial requirements for bidders are not explicitly stated, which is a significant omission.
•No tender documents attached or available for review.
•Missing service specification, which is essential for understanding the scope of services.
Fairness80/100
The 'open framework' nature with continuous applications promotes market access and fairness by allowing new providers to join over time. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria and detailed requirements introduces a high risk of subjective assessment, potentially undermining the fairness and transparency of the selection process. The lack of specific financial requirements could be seen as a low barrier to entry but also as a lack of transparency regarding financial stability expectations.
•Absence of clear evaluation criteria, which can lead to subjective and inconsistent assessment of applications.
•Lack of detailed requirements and service specifications could result in an uneven playing field for bidders.
Practicality40/100
The open framework model with a long duration and continuous applications is practical for ensuring ongoing provision of social services. However, from a bidder's perspective, the complete absence of tender documents, service specifications, and evaluation criteria makes it practically impossible to prepare a meaningful and compliant application.
•Bidders cannot practically prepare a comprehensive and compliant application without access to the full tender documents, service specification, and evaluation criteria.
Data Consistency100/100
The provided basic information, such as the framework type, duration (5 years with a 5-year extension aligning with 120 months), and target group, is consistent within the description. No internal contradictions are apparent in the limited information provided.
Sustainability25/100
The tender explicitly mentions 'Social Criteria' as a characteristic, which is a positive indicator for social sustainability, aligning with the nature of the services. However, there are no explicit requirements or considerations for environmental or economic sustainability detailed in the provided information.
•No explicit environmental or economic sustainability requirements are detailed.