Legal Compliance100/100
Legal compliance is questionable due to the absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds and a lack of clear financial requirements for bidders. The critical document discrepancy also raises fundamental concerns about the integrity of the tender publication.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds.
•Lack of specific financial requirements for bidders.
Clarity60/100
The service description is very clear and well-articulated, outlining the purpose and desired outcomes effectively. However, the eligibility and technical capability requirements for bidders are vague and lack specific, measurable criteria, leading to ambiguity.
•Vague eligibility requirements ('suitably qualified and experienced provider').
•Technical capability requirements are high-level objectives rather than measurable bidder criteria.
Completeness100/100
The tender is significantly incomplete regarding essential procurement information. Key omissions include explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, specific financial requirements, and detailed evaluation criteria. The document discrepancy further suggests a fundamental incompleteness of the provided tender package.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds.
•Missing specific financial requirements for bidders (e.g., minimum turnover, financial stability).
Fairness80/100
Fairness is at risk due to the vagueness of eligibility and technical requirements, coupled with the complete absence of evaluation criteria. This lack of objective standards could lead to subjective assessment and undermine equal treatment of bidders.
•Vague eligibility and technical requirements allow for subjective interpretation.
•Absence of evaluation criteria compromises transparency and fairness.
Practicality60/100
While the service itself is practical and addresses a real need, the tender documentation's lack of specific requirements and evaluation criteria makes it impractical for bidders to prepare robust proposals and for the contracting authority to conduct an efficient, objective evaluation. The absence of e-submission is also a practical drawback.
•Lack of specific requirements and evaluation criteria hinders practical bid preparation and evaluation.
•No e-submission specified, which is a practical limitation in modern procurement.
Data Consistency100/100
There is a critical data inconsistency. The summary for 'Document 3: Tender Notice' clearly describes a tender from Belfast City Council for construction work, which is entirely unrelated to the Perth & Kinross Council's tender for child disability support services. This is a severe error.
•The 'Tender Notice' document summary refers to a different tender (Belfast City Council, construction) than the one being analyzed (Perth & Kinross Council, social services).
Sustainability0/100
The core purpose of the service itself is highly aligned with social sustainability. However, the procurement process does not explicitly incorporate broader social criteria (beyond the service itself) or environmental (green) procurement considerations, representing a missed opportunity.
•No explicit broader social criteria beyond the core service delivery.
•No green procurement criteria specified.