Deliver Skills for Justice Level 5 Certificate in Fire Investigation Training

This tender provides a clear description of the required training service but suffers from significant omissions regarding legal compliance, completeness, and fairness, particularly the absence of evaluation criteria and classified value. It lacks any sustainability focus and does not support e-submission.

Legal compliance is moderate. While the deadline is reasonable (19 days), the procedure type is clear, and the CPV code is appropriate, the tender significantly lacks mandatory exclusion grounds and specified evaluation criteria, which are fundamental requirements even for below-threshold procurements. The classified value also reduces transparency.

Clarity is moderate. The description of the service and technical requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major drawback, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. Explicit performance conditions are also not detailed.

Completeness is moderate. While basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided, critical elements such as the estimated value (classified), evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and specific financial requirements are missing. The provided document summary is also very brief, suggesting potential gaps in the full documentation.

Fairness is moderate to poor. The classified value and the complete absence of evaluation criteria severely impact transparency and the ability for all bidders to compete on an equal footing. The lack of e-submission also presents a potential barrier to equal access. The specific qualification requirement (SFJ Awards Level 5) is standard for the service and not considered tailored.

Practicality is moderate. The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission support and the classified financial value reduce the practicality and ease of participation for potential bidders. A direct document URL is not explicitly provided.

Data consistency is good. Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no disputes or suspensions. However, some key fields like 'Liable Person' are empty, and the estimated value is not disclosed, indicating minor inconsistencies in data population.

Sustainability is very poor. The tender makes no mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.