Proposed New Shed (Subject to Funding)

AI-generated analysis of the documents. Check the official notice and any amendments for current submission details.

1. At a glance

2. Scope of Work

Loughs Agency ran this procurement for “Proposed New Shed (Subject to Funding)” as an operational contract requiring implementation and sustained service execution. The extracted pack showed qualification-stage material with references to later ITT technical depth; practical activity therefore centred on building, integrating, and operating the specified service stack with compliant reporting and handover obligations where stated. Constituent activities and named work elements in the supplied extracts:

• [QW2_Appendix_B1 (1).docx] APPENDIX B1: LIST OF PREVIOUS WORKS/WORKS AND SERVICES FOR WHICH THERE IS A CERTIFICATE OF SATISFACTORY EXECUTION/SERVICE DELIVERY
• List of projects for which works/works and services of a similar nature were provided.
• Contractor/ Service Provider must organise Certificates in order of precedence and list then below in that order.
• Project No. Title of Works/Works and Services
• 1 Contractor/Service Provider Entry
• 2 Contractor/Service Provider Entry
• 3 Contractor/Service Provider Entry
• 4 Contractor/Service Provider Entry
• 5 Contractor/Service Provider Entry
• 6 Contractor/Service Provider Entry
• 7 Contractor/Service Provider Entry
• 8 Contractor/Service Provider Entry

3. Background & buyer context

The buyer context reflected a formal Irish public-procurement route, with pre-qualification used to control entry into the tender stage.

• Title: Proposed New Shed (Subject to Funding)
• by the Northern Ireland Procurement Policy for a period of 12 months from the date of issue of the certifica

4. Eligibility & selection criteria

• Turnover requirement — not specified for this tender
• Insurance — not specified for this tender
• Certifications — not specified for this tender
• Past experience — not specified for this tender
• Personnel — not specified for this tender
• Geographic / facility constraints — not specified for this tender

5. Award criteria & scoring

6. Submission requirements

• Method statement / response document (template/page limits) — not specified in extract.
• CVs (page count, named roles) — not specified in extract.
• Pricing schedule (format/template) — expected at ITT stage.
• Case studies (number/value range) — not specified in extract.
• Declarations (ESPD/Bona Fides/Tax/COI) — not specified in extract.
• Mandatory site visit — not specified in extract.
• Submission portal and formatting — eTenders portal and PDF electronic copies were referenced. Submission-related source lines:
• Value: not disclosed (eTenders placeholder)
• submitted for review at least 2 weeks prior to lifting
• [QW2_Appendix_B1 (1).docx] APPENDIX B1: LIST OF PREVIOUS WORKS/WORKS AND SERVICES FOR WHICH THERE IS A CERTIFICATE OF SATISFACTORY EXECUTION/SERVICE DELIVERY

7. Key dates & process

8. Contract terms that matter

Contract duration in the extract: 6 months. Payment cycle, SLA/KPI schedule, and penalty regime were not fully disclosed in the snippets unless listed below.

• VERIFIED PHRASES (deterministic regex extract from the documents — treat as authoritative for numerical claims)
• contract period is from contract award and for a period of 6 months with possible extension
• and every 12 months for all other equipment) by

9. Risks, red flags & unusuals

• Numeric qualification gates were only partially visible, so eligibility certainty required full pack review.
• Contract value was not disclosed in metadata, creating uncertainty on margin, resourcing, and financing assumptions.
• The two-step process (PQQ then ITT) shifted effort to compliance evidence early, with competitive scoring detail potentially deferred.
• Technical and contractual granularity appeared ITT-dependent, increasing ambiguity at qualification stage for non-incumbent bidders.

10. SME fit assessment

This competition looked most accessible to firms with established public-sector tender capability, documented financial capacity, and direct operational experience in the relevant service category.

• Credible bidder profile — specialist operator with compliant procurement governance and evidencable experience.
• Consortium / sub-contracting — not clearly specified in extract.
• Indicative bid-prep effort — 6 to 12 working days for evidence collation, form completion, and review cycles at PQQ level.
• Pwin signal — strongest for bidders with reusable qualification artefacts, comparable references, and low-friction mobilisation capability.

11. Where to dig deeper

• Source RFT/PQQ filenames: QW2_Appendix_B1 (1).docx, APPENDIX B1: LIST OF PREVIOUS WORKS/WORKS AND SERVICES FOR WHICH THERE IS A CERTIFICATE.
• eTenders CFT / notice reference: not specified in extract.
• Clarification contact / portal: eTenders message portal (email not surfaced in extract).
• Key attachments to prioritise: Appendix/Schedule documents referenced in the source pack.