Provision of an External ISO 27001:2022 Auditor to the Office for Nuclear Regulation

This tender for ISO 27001:2022 audit services demonstrates good clarity in its core requirements and purpose, but is significantly hampered by the absence of evaluation criteria and lack of e-submission, impacting fairness and practicality.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type and CPV codes. Deadlines appear reasonable from the current date, and there are no disputes. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria is a notable legal compliance concern regarding transparency. The missing reveal date also makes a full assessment of the publication period difficult.

The description of the required services and the mandatory eligibility requirements (UKAS Accreditation, UK-based) are clear and unambiguous. However, the critical omission of evaluation criteria significantly reduces clarity for potential bidders on how their proposals will be assessed.

Most essential information such as title, organization, value, duration, and key requirements are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the explicit absence of evaluation criteria, which are fundamental for a comprehensive tender package. Only one document summary is provided, suggesting potential gaps in the available information.

The tender discloses the estimated value and specifies key eligibility requirements. However, the absence of transparent evaluation criteria creates a significant fairness issue, as bidders cannot objectively understand the basis for award. The lack of e-submission also presents a barrier to equal access and efficiency. The 'UK-based' requirement, while restrictive, may be justifiable for a nuclear regulator's security audit.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission capabilities is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders. A direct document URL was not explicitly provided.

Key data fields are largely populated and consistent, with no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and a slight difference between the EUR estimated value and the GBP value mentioned in the document summary, though the latter is qualified as 'approximately'.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation-focused criteria. This is common for highly specialized technical services but represents a missed opportunity to align with broader sustainability objectives.