Provision of Wellbeing Assistance Programme and Support Services for Individuals Involved in Fitness to Practise and Hearings Processes

This tender presents a clear service need but suffers from critical deficiencies in data consistency and the absence of explicit evaluation criteria, significantly impacting fairness and clarity for potential bidders.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes appropriately, and there are no reported disputes. However, the absence of a clear reveal date in the summary and the need to refer to the full ITT for mandatory exclusion and eligibility grounds slightly detract from full transparency.

While the service description is clear, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria in the provided information makes it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. The AI-extracted requirements also frequently defer to the full ITT for details.

Basic tender information, value, and duration are provided, and all documents are listed. However, the critical omission of evaluation criteria and the incomplete summary of mandatory exclusion and eligibility requirements represent significant gaps in the provided overview.

The lack of disclosed evaluation criteria is a severe impediment to fairness and transparency, as bidders cannot objectively prepare their proposals or understand the basis of award. The absence of electronic submission also creates potential barriers to equal access.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission capabilities is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders.

A critical inconsistency exists between the estimated value and contract duration stated in the main financial information (200,000 EUR, 24 months) and the Tender Notice/Official PDF summary (£166,667, up to four years). This fundamental discrepancy is a major concern for tender integrity.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social criteria (beyond the inherent social nature of the service), or innovation focus, indicating a missed opportunity to promote broader sustainability objectives.