TD2317 - Management of Derby City Council Leisure Centres

This tender outlines a significant leisure centre management contract with clear social objectives but is severely undermined by critical omissions like evaluation criteria and significant data inconsistencies.

The tender largely adheres to legal frameworks with a generous submission period and correct CPV classification. However, the absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds and, critically, the lack of detailed evaluation criteria, represent notable gaps in full legal transparency and compliance. The 'Code: N/A' for procedure type is a minor administrative oversight.

The tender provides a clear description of the service scope, objectives, and desired outcomes. The AI-extracted requirements are also well-articulated. However, significant ambiguities exist regarding the contract duration (10 vs 20 years) and the estimated value (currency and basis). The most critical clarity issue is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be judged.

While essential information such as title, organization, description, deadlines, and value are present, the tender is significantly incomplete due to the explicit absence of detailed evaluation criteria. Furthermore, inconsistencies in contract duration and value, along with the missing 'Liable Person' field and the unusual 'Required: No' status for the main PDF document, detract from its overall completeness.

The tender benefits from a transparently disclosed value and a very generous submission period. However, the complete lack of specified evaluation criteria severely undermines fairness and transparency, as bidders cannot understand the basis of assessment. The absence of e-submission also creates an unnecessary barrier to equal access, and while the decision not to divide into lots is justified, it inherently limits participation for smaller entities.

The tender's practicality is significantly hampered by the lack of electronic submission, which is a standard expectation in modern procurement. The major inconsistency in the stated contract duration (10 years vs 20 years) creates substantial practical challenges for bidders in developing accurate long-term financial models and operational plans.

The tender exhibits significant data inconsistencies across several critical fields. There are direct contradictions regarding the contract duration (10 years in timeline vs. 20 years in description for value calculation), the estimated value (EUR vs GBP, and whether it represents turnover or payment), and the characteristic of being 'Divided into Parts' versus the explicit statement 'not divided into Lots.' These inconsistencies pose a considerable risk to the procurement process.

The tender demonstrates a commendable focus on social sustainability, explicitly seeking outcomes related to increased participation for less likely users, improved wellbeing, and reduced health inequality. However, it lacks explicit criteria or emphasis on environmental (green procurement) or innovation aspects, which are increasingly important components of comprehensive sustainability in public procurement.