Legal Compliance75/100
The procedure type and CPV code are correctly defined, and compliance with the UK Procurement Act 2023 is stated. However, the Q&A sessions were held before the analysis date (January 18, 2026), which is a procedural flaw. The absence of explicit mandatory exclusion/eligibility grounds and the apparent lack of full tender documentation (beyond a notice summary) are also concerns.
•Q&A sessions have already passed relative to the analysis date
•No explicit mandatory exclusion/eligibility grounds detailed
Clarity80/100
The service description, locations, and technical requirements are very clear and detailed. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a critical deficiency, preventing bidders from understanding how their proposals will be judged.
•Evaluation criteria are completely missing
Completeness70/100
Basic information, deadlines, value, duration, and location information are provided. However, the critical missing evaluation criteria, the lack of explicit mandatory exclusion/eligibility grounds, and the apparent absence of the full tender documentation (beyond a notice summary) are significant gaps.
•Evaluation criteria are missing
•No explicit mandatory exclusion/eligibility grounds
Fairness85/100
The value is disclosed, and requirements, while detailed, do not appear tailored to a specific company. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a major fairness flaw. The Q&A sessions having passed significantly hinders equal access to information. The flagged lack of e-submission is also a concern.
•Evaluation criteria are completely missing
•Q&A sessions have already passed
Practicality65/100
The contract start date, financing information, and duration are clearly specified. However, the flagged lack of e-submission and the absence of a direct document URL are significant practical drawbacks. The Q&A sessions having passed also makes it impractical for new interested suppliers to seek clarification.
•No electronic submission (flagged)
•No direct document URL provided
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and data is generally consistent. The minor discrepancy between 'Divided into Parts' and 'single Provider Contract' likely refers to service components. The Q&A session dates are internally logical within the document.
•Minor inconsistency between 'Divided into Parts' and 'single Provider Contract'
Sustainability50/100
The tender mentions 'working to reduce re-offending' as a social aspect and implies process innovation with an 'online booking system'. However, there are no explicit green procurement criteria, dedicated social criteria, or a strong innovation focus.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No strong innovation focus