Mayoral Attendant/Chauffeur

What the buyer is asking for

(a) To provide an experienced, professional Attendant/Chauffeur to the Mayor of St Helens (or their Deputy if circumstances dictate) as and when required in relation to the Mayor's engagements.

How this is scored

Published by the buyer. A winning response is written to these weightings, not to the question.

• 50%qualityQualitativeThe weighted score for each question is calculated as follows: E.G. A question carries a weighing of 10% (maximum score allowed = 4), the actual score given is 3. To work out the weighted score: Actual Score Multiplied by Question Weighting Divided by Maximum Possible Score equals Weighted Score 3 x 10 ÷ 4 = 7.50% Failure to upload your quantitative response to the Social Value Portal by the deadline will result in your Quotation being excluded and your Quotation will not be assessed further. The Weighted Score for all Quality & Social Value Questions (Quantitative and Qualitative) are added together to form the Total Weighted Quality Score. Scoring Methodology (Quality): The following scoring methodology will be used for scoring your responses to the quality questions. The following scores shall be awarded based on the proposals received and the degree of confidence that, on the basis of the facts known to the evaluation panel at the time of making the assessment, the proposal meets the interpretation of the applicable score. Factors which the evaluation panel will take into account in making this assessment are set out below for each score: Score Interpretation 4 Good • Response demonstrates in comprehensive detail how all the elements of the requirement / focus of the question will be fulfilled to an acceptable level of quality. The response is entirely relevant. There are no omissions of concern, and response demonstrates a sound understanding of the requirements / focus of the question and influential factors, including systems, and quality measures to deliver the requirement / focus of the question to a good quality AND • Risks to Council / end users / stakeholders etc. associated with response / proposed delivery are of no concern to the Council 3 Satisfactory • Response demonstrates in sufficient detail how the majority of the elements of the requirement / focus of the question will be fulfilled to an acceptable level of quality. There may be a small number of minor omissions, however, the response demonstrates a sound understanding of the requirements / focus of the question and influential factors, including systems, and quality measures to deliver the requirement / focus of the question to a satisfactory quality AND • There are no significant omission from the response AND • Risks to Council / end users / stakeholders etc. associated with response / proposed delivery are of limited concern to the Council 2 Deficient • Response demonstrates in sufficient detail how the majority of the elements of the requirement / focus of the question will be fulfilled to an acceptable level of quality, however, there are omissions of some important factors that show some limit on understanding of the requirements / focus of the question and other important influential factors, including systems, and quality measures to deliver the requirement / focus of the question to a satisfactory quality AND • There is at least one significant omission in the response and thereby has not sufficiently demonstrated or evidenced how the requirement / focus of the question will be fulfilled to a satisfactory quality AND • Risks to Council / end users / stakeholders etc. associated with response / proposed delivery are of limited concern to the Council 1 Poor • Response addresses minimal elements of the requirement / focus of the question AND / OR • In general contains limited responses or limited detail or explanation and/or evidence to demonstrate how the majority of the requirements / focus of the question will be fulfilled or how an acceptable level of quality will be achieved AND / OR • Contains irrelevant or inaccurate or misleading information that shows significant limits on understanding of the requirements / focus of the question and/or other important influential factors including systems, and quality measures to deliver the requirement / focus of the question to a satisfactory quality AND • Risks to Council / end users / stakeholders etc. associated with response / proposed delivery are of serious concern to the Council.
• 20%qualitySocial Value1.6.2.2 The weighted score for each question is calculated as follows: E.G. A question carries a weighing of 10% (maximum score allowed = 4), the actual score given is 3. To work out the weighted score: Actual Score Multiplied by Question Weighting Divided by Maximum Possible Score equals Weighted Score 3 x 10 ÷ 4 = 7.50% Score Interpretation 4 Good. Response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements and provides comprehensive and clear details of how social value offers made will be delivered The response provides a high level of certainty that the Bidder will deliver their social value commitments. 3 Satisfactory. Response is relevant and good. The response addresses all requirements and is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good understanding and provides details on how the requirements will be fulfilled but includes some ambiguity or minor inconsistencies as to how social value offers made will be delivered. The response provides confidence that the Bidder will deliver their social value commitments. 2 Deficient. Response is relevant and fair. The response addresses all requirements and demonstrates a fair understanding of the requirements but lacks details on how certain social value offers made will be delivered or contains some inconsistencies. Alternatively, the response fails to address all of the requirements. The response provides some concerns that the Bidder will deliver the social value commitment. 1 Poor. Response is partially relevant but generally poor. The response addresses all requirements but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate how the requirements (or any of them) will be fulfilled or contains major inconsistencies. Alternatively, the response fails to address the majority of the requirements. The response provides significant reservations that the Bidder will deliver the social value commitment. 0 Unacceptable. No response submitted, or response fails entirely to demonstrate an ability to meet any of the requirements.
• 30%priceQuotativeThe price assessment shall comprise evaluation of the Price in accordance with the below. Responses indicating an item: priced at £0.00 or 0%; or priced at a rate considered to be economically unviable by the Council; or priced using a non-specific range of rates will result in the rejection of your Quotation The weighted score for Price is calculated as follows: E.G. Price carries a weighing of 40%. (lowest price submitted is £10,000), Bidders price submitted is £15,000. To work out the weighted score: Lowest Price Submitted (including PSS/PAS rebate) Divided by Bidders Submitted Price (including PSS/PAS rebate) Multiplied by Weight-ing equals Weighted Price Score 10,000 Divided by 15,000 Multiplied by 40% = 26.67%

What you must already have

Conditions of participation. These are pass or fail, so check them before writing anything.

• The Tender is open to suppliers with in the St. Helens city region and to suppliers based in Lancashire and Merseyside

How contested is this?

Buyers publish how many bids they received. Across 239 comparable procurements we can tell you the typical field size, how often one of these goes uncontested, and whether the buyer awards on price or on quality.

Timeline

3 published dates · Europe/London

1. Tender notice publishedyesterday

   23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST
2. Clarification questions byin 26 days

   20 Oct 2026, 17:00 BST
3. Submission deadlinein 36 days

   30 Oct 2026, 12:00 GMT

Commercial outcome and contract awards

Nothing awarded yet

Notice history

1 event · 1 release on Find a Tender

1. Tender notice23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST090315-2026

Documents

• Brief Description of specification
• Tender notice on Find a Tender