RYKNELD HOMES LIMITED: Contract Register & Procurement Profile
Companies House: PRI/LTD BY GUAR/NSC (Private, limited by guarantee, no share capital)·Social housing register: Company·East Midlands·Chesterfield
Companies House05864912 ↗Websiterykneldhomes.org.uk ↗
i
Tenders you can still bid for.
Notices at tender stage whose deadline has not passed, counted the way the search counts them: a notice shows under every code and region it names.
i
Notices published in the last 12 months.
Counted per tender, not per lot, against the 12 months before where shown.
i
How many companies usually bid when this buyer runs a tender.
Middle value of the bid counts on its award notices, one per lot. Only real competitions count: direct awards and framework places are left out.
Based on 5 lots from this buyer’s competitions, last 24 months.
i
How much of this buyer’s work goes to its three most frequent suppliers.
Share of its awarded tenders that name at least one of the top three. Each tender is counted once.
43 awarded tenders, 35 different suppliers.
Describes the record. It is not a sign of favouritism.
i
Contracts that finish in the next 18 months.
Contracts ending in that window by the published end date or, where only a duration is published, an estimate from signature plus duration (marked). Neither, not counted.
An end date does not confirm a new procurement.
i
How much this buyer has awarded recently, by published values.
Sum of published VAT-exclusive awards to single suppliers, last 24 months. Left out: concession revenue, framework ceilings, repeated notices, equal-value duplicates.
Published values, not actual spend. The biggest rows are listed so you can check.
What they buyi
What kind of work is bought here.
Notices by procurement category (CPV). A notice with several categories counts in each.
i
What kind of work is bought here.
Notices by procurement category (CPV). A notice with several categories counts in each.
Last 24 months · CPV divisions on published procedures · a notice with several divisions counts in each
45 Construction work9 procedures · 20%71 Architectural, construction, engineering4 procedures · 9%44 Construction structures and materials3 procedures · 7%63 Supporting and auxiliary transport; travel2 procedures · 4%03 Agricultural, farming, fishing, forestry1 procedures · 2%09 Petroleum, coal, oil and gas1 procedures · 2%31 Electrical machinery1 procedures · 2%35 Security, fire-fighting, police1 procedures · 2%How they buyi
How work here is packaged.
Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.
i
How work here is packaged.
Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.
Last 24 months · 45 notices · commercial tool and route as published on the notice, not a legal-regime claim
i
How work here is packaged.
Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.
Contract100%(45 notices)
45 of 45 notices are Contract (100%).
i
Which procedures buyers here use.
Notices by the procedure they declare: open, selective, limited or direct. Open and selective are competitions; limited and direct are not.
Direct award60%(27 notices)
27 of 45 notices are Direct award (60%).Limited / restricted22%(10 notices)
10 of 45 notices are Limited / restricted (22%).Open13%(6 notices)
6 of 45 notices are Open (13%).Route not published4%(2 notices)
2 of 45 notices are Route not published (4%).
i
How many companies usually bid when this buyer runs a tender.
Middle value of the bid counts on its award notices, one per lot. Only real competitions count: direct awards and framework places are left out.
Based on 5 lots from this buyer’s competitions, last 24 months.
i
How long this buyer takes to decide after bids close.
Middle value in days from the bid deadline to the award date, on this buyer’s own tenders.
Based on 5 decided tenders across all categories, last 24 months.
i
How often this buyer changes a notice after publishing it.
Middle number of amendments per notice. Deadline extensions and corrections both count.
Based on 45 notices across all categories, last 24 months.
i
Do this buyer’s awards land above or below its own estimates.
Each lot’s published estimate against its award, on this buyer’s competitions, like for like.
Based on 4 lots with both an estimate and an award, last 24 months. Small sample.
A past pattern, not a price to bid.
Who wins herei
Which suppliers win the most here.
Suppliers ranked by the number of tenders won, not by money. A supplier on one big framework with many call-offs does not outrank one that won many separate competitions.
i
Which suppliers win the most here.
Suppliers ranked by the number of tenders won, not by money. A supplier on one big framework with many call-offs does not outrank one that won many separate competitions.
All published awards naming a supplier · ranked by distinct procedures, not pounds · panel and call-off entries inflate award records
| Supplier | Procedures | Share | Last 24m | Award records | Last activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Driveout Site Services Limited | 3 | 7% | 3 | 3 | 20 Apr 2026 |
| A & G PLASTERING CONTRACTORS LIMITED | 2 | 4.7% | 2 | 3 | 5 May 2026 |
| Concorde BGW Limited | 2 | 4.7% | 2 | 3 | 13 Oct 2025 |
| GAP Property Services (Leicester) Ltd | 2 | 4.7% | 2 | 2 | 25 Mar 2026 |
| INTEGRAL CONCRETE SOLUTIONS LIMITED | 2 | 4.7% | 2 | 2 | 1 May 2026 |
| KEVAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD | 2 | 4.7% | 2 | 2 | 1 May 2026 |
| Ven Construction Limited | 2 | 4.7% | 2 | 2 | 1 May 2026 |
| Kwikshift European Transportation and Logistics ltd | 2 | 4.7% | 2 | 2 | 15 Mar 2026 |
The three most frequent suppliers are named on 16% of 43 awarded procedures (each procedure counted once, so a panel shared by several of them is not double-counted); 35 distinct suppliers hold at least one. Descriptive concentration of published awards, not a statement of preference.
i
How much this buyer has awarded recently, by published values.
Sum of published VAT-exclusive awards to single suppliers, last 24 months. Left out: concession revenue, framework ceilings, repeated notices, equal-value duplicates.
Published values, not actual spend. The biggest rows are listed so you can check.
i
The middle published award value for this buyer.
Middle value of the same awards as the total above.
Contracts endingi
Contracts that finish in the next 18 months.
Contracts ending in that window by the published end date or, where only a duration is published, an estimate from signature plus duration (marked). Neither, not counted.
An end date does not confirm a new procurement.
i
Contracts that finish in the next 18 months.
Contracts ending in that window by the published end date or, where only a duration is published, an estimate from signature plus duration (marked). Neither, not counted.
An end date does not confirm a new procurement.
17 of 25 contracts carry an end date · not a retender forecast
Recent procedures
Latest 45 of 45 procedures where this authority buys, is the authority the work is for, or runs the procurement
About this data
- Source. Official UK public procurement notices (Find a Tender), reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. New notices arrive through the day; the figures are rebuilt nightly.
- One profile per authority. Different spellings and registration numbers of the same body are merged into this profile. It includes tenders the authority ran for other bodies and tenders run on its behalf; spend is credited to the body that pays.
- Values are published values. Award values are what the authority published, excluding VAT and framework ceilings. They are not a budget or total spend.
- Contract end dates. 17 of 25 published contracts have an end date; 0 of those are estimated as the signature (or publication) date plus the published duration and are marked “estimated”. They feed “Contracts ending”, the same rule as the retender radar.
- Every figure shows what it rests on. Not every notice publishes a bid count, a value or a delivery region, so each figure carries the number of records behind it, and one built on few records is marked as such. The on a figure explains it; the counting rules are in the methodology. Spotted something wrong? Tell us.