North East Essex Mental Health Recovery College

This tender for a Mental Health Recovery College demonstrates good intent with strong social and innovation aspects, but is significantly hampered by a lack of detailed evaluation criteria and the absence of electronic submission, impacting clarity, fairness, and practicality.

The procedure type and CPV code are clearly defined, and the preparation period (24 days) is reasonable for a below-threshold tender. However, the tender lacks a specified reveal date and does not detail mandatory exclusion grounds, which are standard legal requirements.

The service description and AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable. However, a significant clarity issue arises from the lack of detailed evaluation criteria, as only categories (service quality, cost, social value) are mentioned without specific weights or sub-criteria. Performance conditions are also implied rather than explicitly detailed.

Most basic information, including title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, and duration, is provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the missing reveal date and, more critically, the absence of comprehensive, detailed evaluation criteria.

The estimated value is disclosed, and requirements appear generic, not tailored to a specific company. However, the absence of detailed evaluation criteria significantly compromises transparency and objectivity, making it difficult for bidders to understand the basis of award. Furthermore, the lack of e-submission creates a barrier to equal access and ease of participation.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the most significant practical drawback is the lack of electronic submission, which is a major inefficiency and inconvenience for bidders in 2026.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There is a minor inconsistency with the 'Liable Person' field being empty and N/A codes for procedure type. The primary inconsistency lies in the 'ISSUES/FLAGS' stating 'No evaluation criteria specified' while the AI summary and PDF content mention evaluation categories, highlighting a lack of detail rather than complete absence.

The tender explicitly includes 'Social Criteria' and 'Innovation Focus' as characteristics, demonstrating a strong commitment to these sustainability aspects, particularly through co-creation with lived experience. However, it lacks explicit green procurement elements.