Legal Compliance100/100
The tender explicitly states it is not subject to the Procurement Act 2023, which is plausible given that no contracts or payments will be made by the FCA to panel firms. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided information is a significant omission, even for a below-threshold or non-regulated process, as it undermines transparency and good governance principles.
•No explicit mandatory exclusion grounds provided.
Clarity40/100
The overall objective of establishing an IP panel is clear. However, the specific requirements for 'requisite skills and experience' are vague, and the operational mechanism for how IPs will be appointed from the panel is not detailed, leading to ambiguity for potential bidders.
•Vague technical capability requirements ('requisite skills and experience').
•Lack of detail on the panel's operational mechanism and IP appointment process.
Completeness75/100
The tender is severely incomplete. The complete absence of any tender documents (e.g., Request for Proposal, terms of reference, detailed scope) is a critical flaw. Furthermore, there are no evaluation criteria specified, making it impossible for bidders to understand how their submissions will be assessed.
•No tender documents (RFP, terms of reference, etc.) provided.
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria.
Fairness40/100
While an 'open competition' is stated, the lack of detailed requirements, evaluation criteria, and supporting documents creates a significant risk of an unfair process. Bidders cannot adequately prepare competitive responses or understand the basis of selection, potentially leading to subjective assessments.
•Lack of detailed evaluation criteria leading to potential for subjective assessment.
•Vague requirements hinder fair competition.
Practicality40/100
The use of an eProcurement system (Atamis) for submission is practical. However, the complete absence of any substantive tender documents makes it highly impractical for bidders to formulate a meaningful and compliant response, effectively placing an undue burden on them to guess the full requirements.
•Bidders cannot adequately prepare a comprehensive response without detailed tender documents.
Data Consistency100/100
The provided information is internally consistent. The automated check's 'No e-submission' flag appears to be an error, as the tender explicitly states submission via the Atamis eProcurement system.
Sustainability0/100
There is no mention of any environmental, social, or governance (ESG) criteria or considerations within the tender information.
•No sustainability criteria or considerations mentioned.