Aseptic Unit Re-Development at Arrowe Park Hospital

This tender provides clear project requirements but suffers from a critical lack of specified evaluation criteria and highly restrictive experience requirements that may limit fair competition. The absence of e-submission also presents a practical drawback.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type and assigns an appropriate CPV code. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. While the reveal date is not provided, the submission period from today's date is reasonable. However, the absence of explicit mention of specific national procurement regulations or a full set of mandatory disclosures (e.g., full document access details) slightly reduces the score.

The project description and technical requirements for case studies are exceptionally clear and unambiguous. However, the tender explicitly states 'Missing evaluation criteria,' which is a significant deficiency as it leaves bidders uncertain about how their proposals will be assessed, severely impacting the clarity of the procurement process itself.

All essential basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and key dates are provided. Requirements are well-defined. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria and the fact that only one out of four documents has a content summary indicate potential gaps in the publicly available detailed information.

This category presents significant concerns. The requirement for four UK-based case studies, completed within 10 years, for specific client types (NHS, Private Hospital, Commercial Provider in the UK), with at least one MHRA Manufacturer's Specials Licence, is highly restrictive. This level of specificity and geographical limitation strongly suggests the requirements may be tailored to a very small number of pre-identified UK companies, potentially limiting competition. Furthermore, the lack of e-submission and missing evaluation criteria undermine transparency and equal access.

The tender clearly specifies the contract start date and duration. However, the absence of electronic submission (e-submission) is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders and the contracting authority.

The provided data is largely consistent and logical. Key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates (submission, contract start, duration) are coherent. The only minor missing field is the 'Liable Person' and the specific 'reveal date'.

The tender explicitly mentions 'Innovation Focus' as a characteristic, which is a positive aspect. However, it lacks any stated green procurement criteria or social aspects, which are increasingly important considerations in public procurement. It is also not EU funded, which often implies higher sustainability standards.