Catering Tender Sullivan Upper School

This tender exhibits significant data inconsistencies and documentation errors, particularly the inclusion of an irrelevant document and conflicting contract durations, which severely impact its quality and potential for smooth execution.

Legal compliance is significantly hampered by the inconsistent contract duration (36 months vs 5-7 years) and the inclusion of a document pertaining to a completely different tender (King's College Hospital). While CPV codes are correct and no disputes are noted, these fundamental documentation errors pose considerable legal risks and ambiguities.

The tender description and AI-extracted requirements are generally clear, and evaluation criteria are specified. However, the fundamental inconsistency regarding the contract duration (36 months in basic info vs 5-7 years in description/requirements) creates significant ambiguity for potential bidders.

While most basic information is present, the tender is incomplete due to the missing 'Liable Person' and the critical issue of Document 1 being irrelevant to this tender. The inconsistent contract duration also points to a lack of thoroughness in defining key terms.

The tender discloses its value and uses objective evaluation criteria (quality/price weighting). However, the absence of electronic submission limits equal access for all potential bidders. The inclusion of an irrelevant document also creates unnecessary confusion, potentially hindering fair participation.

Practicality is low due to the lack of electronic submission, which is a significant barrier in modern procurement. Furthermore, the contract start date being identical to the submission deadline is illogical and highly impractical, suggesting an administrative error.

This category scores very poorly due to multiple critical inconsistencies. Document 1 is for a different entity, the contract duration is stated inconsistently (36 months vs 5-7 years), and the contract start date is illogically set as the submission deadline. Several key fields are also unpopulated.

The tender does not include any explicit requirements or considerations for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, resulting in a low score for sustainability.