Mersey View Learning Trust Catering Framework Tender 2026

This tender for catering services provides a clear overview of the framework structure and process but suffers from significant gaps in detailed requirements, transparency of evaluation criteria, and modern procurement practices like e-submission.

The tender defines a 'Restricted' and 'Competitive flexible procedure', but the N/A codes for these types are a minor omission. A significant concern is the absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary. The missing reveal date also hinders a full assessment of initial compliance.

The description of the multi-supplier framework, its objectives, and the two-stage procurement process (PSQ then ITT) is generally clear. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria in this document (though promised in the PSQ) and the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds reduce overall clarity. The conflicting 'Submission Deadline' field versus the narrative's 'Tender response deadline' also creates ambiguity.

While basic information like title, organization, value, and duration is present, the tender lacks full completeness. Only one of four tender documents is summarized, and key details such as comprehensive evaluation criteria and a 'Liable Person' are missing from the provided information.

The absence of electronic submission is a significant barrier to equal access and fairness. The high Employer's Liability insurance requirement (£10M GBP) and emphasis on 'good local infrastructure' could be restrictive, potentially limiting competition to larger, established local providers. The narrow target of 1-3 contractors for a multi-supplier framework also raises concerns about market access.

The lack of electronic submission is a major practical drawback in modern procurement, increasing administrative burden for bidders. The absence of a direct document URL also hinders easy access to tender materials.

There are notable inconsistencies in key dates: the 'Submission Deadline' field matches the 'Contract Start' date, which contradicts the narrative's 'Tender response deadline' in March. The 'Contract Duration' field (36 months) also conflicts with the '3 +1 +1 period (5 years in total)' described in the text. Minor fields like 'Liable Person' are empty, and procedure codes are N/A.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement criteria, social aspects (beyond general labour resource), or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles into the procurement process.