Veterinary services: UK Tenders, Buyers & Competition

CPV 85200000Services · classin Health & Social Care

Open now1open for bids now · see them in the search
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.

Notices, last 12 months1915 contracting authorities · 139 in the catalogue
i

Notices published in the last 12 months.

Counted per tender, not per lot, against the 12 months before where shown.

Typical bids per lot229% single-bid · 13 procedures, 36 months
i

How many companies usually bid for a lot here.

The middle value of the bid counts that award notices publish, one per lot. Only real competitions count: direct awards and framework places are left out.

Based on 14 lots from 13 competitions run by 12 buyers, last 36 months. A buyer with many similar contests counts only up to a limit. 8 lots are from Procurement Act 2023 notices (bids assessed, middle 2) and 6 from older notices (bids received, middle 2).

Last 36 months.

Typical contract value£240,000middle value of 33 contract awards, net · not frameworks
i

What a contract here is usually worth.

Middle value of published award values, VAT excluded. Framework ceilings are left out because they are not real contract values.

Based on 33 awards with a usable value, last 36 months.

Published values, not actual spend.

Last 36 months.

Codes and neighbouring classes

The 8-digit CPV codes notices in this class actually use, and the other classes of the same division

Who buys
i

Which buyers publish the most notices here.

Buyers ranked by the number of notices, duplicate names merged.

All notices carrying this code · official UK_CA_TYPE where published (NHS bodies are central government authorities), else derived from the authority name

Buyer type
i

What kinds of public bodies buy here.

Notices by the buyer’s type as published, otherwise by its name.

  • Central government60%(84 notices)
    84 of 139 notices are Central government (60%).
  • Local authorities17%(23 notices)
    23 of 139 notices are Local authorities (17%).
  • Education & universities6%(9 notices)
    9 of 139 notices are Education & universities (6%).
  • Police, fire & emergency4%(6 notices)
    6 of 139 notices are Police, fire & emergency (4%).
  • Not classified12%(17 notices)
    17 of 139 notices are Not classified (12%).
Contracting authorityTypeNoticesLast 12 monthsOpen now
The Food Standards AgencyCentral government6910
Food Standards Scotland (FSS)not classified700
Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural AffairsCentral government420
Scottish Police AuthorityCentral government420
University of GlasgowEducation & universities400
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH AGENCY (Defra Network eTendering Portal)not classified330
Defra Network eTendering Portalnot classified300
Dover District CouncilLocal authorities310
Ashford Borough CouncilLocal authorities200
London Borough of HillingdonLocal authorities200

41 distinct authorities in total · the ten most active shown.

Where the work is delivered
i

Where the work on these notices is delivered.

Delivery regions published on the notices. A notice with several regions counts in each.

Where the work is, not where the buyer is based.

Delivery regions (ITL1) published on 54 of 139 notices · a notice covering several regions counts in each · competition columns: contracts awarded in the last 36 months, lots delivered in the region

RegionNoticesBids / lotSME winsLocal wins
Scotland22 · 41%———
South East England12 · 22%———
Greater London9 · 17%———
East of England6 · 11%———
North West England6 · 11%———
South West England6 · 11%———
East Midlands5 · 9%———
North East England5 · 9%———
Yorkshire and the Humber4 · 7%———
Northern Ireland4 · 7%———
West Midlands4 · 7%———
Wales (Cymru)2 · 4%———

Local wins = the winner’s registered region is the delivery region. Dashes: fewer than ten observations.

How it is bought
i

How work here is packaged.

Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.

Commercial tool, procedure route and threshold as published on the notice, not a legal-regime claim

Commercial tool
i

How work here is packaged.

Notices by commercial tool: a single contract, a framework, or a dynamic purchasing system.

  • Contract58%(80 notices)
    80 of 139 notices are Contract (58%).
  • Framework42%(59 notices)
    59 of 139 notices are Framework (42%).
Procedure route
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.

  • Route not published53%(74 notices)
    74 of 139 notices are Route not published (53%).
  • Open32%(45 notices)
    45 of 139 notices are Open (32%).
  • Limited / restricted9%(12 notices)
    12 of 139 notices are Limited / restricted (9%).
  • Direct award5%(7 notices)
    7 of 139 notices are Direct award (5%).
  • Selective1%(1 notices)
    1 of 139 notices are Selective (1%).
Threshold
i

How much of this market is above the legal threshold.

Notices by whether the buyer marked them above or below the threshold that triggers the full rules.

  • Above threshold73%(11 notices)
    11 of 15 notices are Above threshold (73%).
  • Below threshold27%(4 notices)
    4 of 15 notices are Below threshold (27%).
Typical tender window
i

How long bidders get to respond.

Middle value in days from the tender notice to its deadline.

All notices we hold, not just recent ones.

34 daysrobust · n=12middle value, notice to deadline

Competition

Contracts published in the last 36 months (43) · bid counts per lot from award notices · values are net contract awards, framework and DPS ceilings excluded · SME and local status as declared

Bids per lot · n=14
i

How many bids past lots received.

Each colour is a bid-count range. Only competed lots with a published count are included.

Past bids do not predict this tender.

Last 36 months.

  • 1 bid29%(4)
    4 of 14 lots fall in 1 bid (29%).
  • 2–350%(7)
    7 of 14 lots fall in 2–3 (50%).
  • 4–621%(3)
    3 of 14 lots fall in 4–6 (21%).
  • 7 or more0%(0)
    0 of 14 lots fall in 7 or more (0%).
Contract value, net
i

The usual range of contract values here.

The middle half of published award values, VAT excluded, with the middle value marked. Framework ceilings are left out.

Published values, not actual spend.

p25 £125,000middle value £240,000p75 £1,000,000
interquartile range of 33 awards · p90 £2,883,681
Typical bids per lot
i

How many companies usually bid for a lot here.

The middle value of the bid counts that award notices publish, one per lot. Only real competitions count: direct awards and framework places are left out.

Based on 14 lots from 13 competitions run by 12 buyers, last 36 months. A buyer with many similar contests counts only up to a limit. 8 lots are from Procurement Act 2023 notices (bids assessed, middle 2) and 6 from older notices (bids received, middle 2).

Last 36 months.

2robust · n=13middle half 1–3
Competed
i

How much of this market is actually put out to competition.

Notices run as an open or selective procedure, out of all notices that say which procedure was used. Direct awards count as not competed.

21 of 37 notices that state a procedure, last 36 months. 6 more give no procedure and are left out.

Last 36 months.

57%robust · n=37
Bids from SMEs
i

What share of bids come from small and medium firms.

SME bids divided by all bids, on lots where the buyer published the split.

18 SME bids out of 31, on 12 lots where the buyer published the split.

Last 36 months.

58%robust · n=31
Awards won by SMEs
i

What share of contracts go to small and medium firms.

Awards to a single supplier that declared its size. SME divided by all.

12 of 28 awards where the winner declared its size.

Last 36 months.

43%robust · n=28
Won locally
i

How much work here goes to companies based in the region.

Contract awards where the winner’s registered address is in this region, out of awards where the address is known.

Registered address, so a national firm with a local branch counts as outside.

Last 36 months.

57%robust · n=14winner registered in the delivery region
Abandoned
i

How often a tender ends with no award.

Notices cancelled, withdrawn or marked unsuccessful, plus terminated ones that never got an award.

2 of 43 notices, last 36 months.

Only what buyers published. Tenders that quietly went nowhere are not counted.

Last 36 months.

5%robust · n=43

Who wins
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.

Ranked by distinct procedures won on notices carrying this code, then award records · 132 awards to 53 suppliers · the five most frequent winners hold 33% of contract awards in the last 36 months

Where to submit
i

Where bids for this work are submitted.

Notices by the portal in their submission link, where one is published.

E-sourcing portals named in the submission address · 35 of 139 notices name one · each portal page explains registration

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.
  • What counts here. Every notice with a CPV code starting 8520. A notice with several codes counts in each sector it names. Notices from 2021 to 5 Oct 2026.
  • Competition. Bids and winners cover the last three years and count each lot as its own contest; frameworks and dynamic purchasing systems are shown apart from ordinary contracts.
  • Why no total spend. Notice estimates often repeat a framework’s ceiling, so adding them up would overstate the market. Typical contract values are shown instead.
  • 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.