Official UK procurement notice
Mayoral Attendant/Chauffeur · UK public procurement notice
Authority: St Helens Council (Local council)
What is being bought
Published requirement description(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.
CPV: Security services
The lotProcurement structure
single lot · value publishedLot #1RenewalPublished value£150,000
- Condition of participation
The Tender is open to suppliers with in the St. Helens city region and to suppliers based in Lancashire and Merseyside
What it takes to wini
How this buyer will score bids.
The evaluation criteria and weights exactly as published on the notice, grouped by family (price, quality, social value and so on).
Evaluation split and conditions of participation as published; the tender pack may add morei
How this buyer will score bids.
The evaluation criteria and weights exactly as published on the notice, grouped by family (price, quality, social value and so on).
Published sub-criteria (3)
- Qualitative: 50%
- Quotative: 30%
- Social Value: 20%
Published award criteria (3)
- Qualitative: 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% 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.
- Social Value: 1.6.2.2 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.
- Quotative: The 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%
- Condition of participation
The Tender is open to suppliers with in the St. Helens city region and to suppliers based in Lancashire and Merseyside
- Price carries 30 of 100 points: a 10% discount moves about 3 points. The method statement decides this lot, not the discount.
- Turnover usually expected at this size: about £99,909 (twice the annual value).
Price arithmetic assumes straight proportional scoring; the tender pack may use another formula. Turnover is an indicative market norm (≈2× annual value), not a published condition.
Competition analysis · published record, not a forecast of who will bid
How St Helens Council buys Security services (CPV 7971), and who usually turns up
St Helens Council’s published record next to the market for the same work. Frameworks and DPS are left out: they draw different bid counts. Whole-market view: Security services (CPV 7971) →
How the contest usually goes
Winner shares use published awards; bid and price charts use contested lots.
i
How often small and medium firms win.
Share of awards where the winner’s size is known.
The counts under this question show how many awards have a known supplier size.
Small firms have won here. Neither number says whether you qualify; it describes who has been winning.
i
How often local firms win similar work.
Winners with a registered address in the delivery region, out of awards with a known address.
Local means the winner is registered in the region where that award was delivered. The market figure counts awards delivered in North West England.
A local branch does not count if the registered address is elsewhere.
Most of this buyer’s recorded winners were registered in the region where that award was delivered.
i
How long buyers here take to decide after bids close.
Middle value in days from the bid deadline to the award date, on competitions that published both.
Only decided tenders count, so slow ones still waiting are not in.
Half of these awards have an award date within 37 days of the bid deadline.
i
How often work is awarded with no recorded rival.
Direct awards and tenders where every published lot count shows one bid.
Both shares are minimums: some awards have no bid count.
Thin markets produce this too; it is not proof of a tailored specification.
Missing bid counts may hide more single-bid awards. This share is a minimum.
How many bids did past lots attract?
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.
1 bid0% / 0%
2–367% / 19%
4–625% / 6%
7+8% / 75%
How did awards compare with estimates?
i
Where winning prices landed against estimates.
Each colour shows awards below, close to or above the published estimate, one lot at a time.
Past prices are a guide, not a bid price.
Below estimate46% / 38%
Within ±2%21% / 25%
Above estimate33% / 38%
Assess each lot i
What past awards tell you about each lot.
See the forecast, this buyer’s earlier suppliers and firms with relevant wins.
No supplier is confirmed as a bidder.
i
What past awards tell you about each lot.
See the forecast, this buyer’s earlier suppliers and firms with relevant wins.
No supplier is confirmed as a bidder.
Open a lot for its forecast, this buyer’s previous supplier and possible competitors, from published award history, not a bid list
Lot #1CPV 7971Published estimate£150k
i
How many bids this lot may attract.
The forecast uses similar past competitions. The bar shows either that forecast or past bid counts; the line below says which.
Each lot shows its own forecast based on its own category; forecasts for different lots of the same notice are not comparative.
A forecast, not a list of bidders.
1 bid8%
2–329%
4–624%
7+39%
i
Where the award price may land.
The forecast uses similar awards and the buyer’s estimate. The band covers the middle half of likely prices.
Based on 12 comparable awards. Each lot reflects its own category; forecasts for different lots of the same notice are not comparative.
A statistical guide from past awards, not a price to bid.
Middle 50%£111k–£150k
Estimate£150k
Who has supplied this buyer on similar work? i
Who has done similar work for this buyer.
Past contracts are matched by buyer, title and type of work.
A past supplier may not bid again.
i
Who has done similar work for this buyer.
Past contracts are matched by buyer, title and type of work.
A past supplier may not bid again.
No earlier contract of this buyer matches this lot on the published record.
Who could compete for this lot? i
Who could compete for this lot?
Firms with relevant past wins. On a framework, we show firms on that agreement.
None is confirmed as a bidder.
i
Who could compete for this lot?
Firms with relevant past wins. On a framework, we show firms on that agreement.
None is confirmed as a bidder.
| Supplier | Won in this category | Live contracts | Award vs estimate |
|---|---|---|---|
| £3.3m38 awards in 36m · last this month | 15 live · £1.9m iPublic contracts this supplier still holds. Its awards whose published end date is still in the future, with their values. Many contracts publish no end date, so this is a floor, not the whole book. Unexpired says nothing about spare capacity. | at estimate n=1 | |
| £3.0m9 awards in 36m · last 1 months ago | 4 live · £2.8m iPublic contracts this supplier still holds. Its awards whose published end date is still in the future, with their values. Many contracts publish no end date, so this is a floor, not the whole book. Unexpired says nothing about spare capacity. | at estimate n=1 | |
| £594k18 awards in 36m · last 2 months ago | 2 live · £87k iPublic contracts this supplier still holds. Its awards whose published end date is still in the future, with their values. Many contracts publish no end date, so this is a floor, not the whole book. Unexpired says nothing about spare capacity. | no comparable pairs | |
| £735k8 awards in 36m · last 1 months ago | 1 live · £26k iPublic contracts this supplier still holds. Its awards whose published end date is still in the future, with their values. Many contracts publish no end date, so this is a floor, not the whole book. Unexpired says nothing about spare capacity. | no comparable pairs | |
CallCare LtdSME | 2 awards in 36m · last 2 months ago | 1 live · £63k iPublic contracts this supplier still holds. Its awards whose published end date is still in the future, with their values. Many contracts publish no end date, so this is a floor, not the whole book. Unexpired says nothing about spare capacity. | no comparable pairs |
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.
- Two views, kept apart. The authority’s own track record and the wider market for the same kind of work sit side by side and are never mixed. Where the local picture is too thin, a figure widens to a broader market and says which one it used.
- Forecasts are labelled. The price forecast and its range, possible competitors and the earlier-work matches are our estimates from past awards: not published facts, not win chances and not price advice. Official notices do not say who is bidding.
- 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.
Procedure terms & legal framework
From the official record- Procedure method
- Below threshold - open competition
- Legal basis
- UKPGA · 2023/54 Procurement Act 2023
- Procurement category
- Services
- Notice status
- Open for tender
- Procurement threshold
- Below threshold
- Regulatory regime
- Standard
- Commercial structure
- Stand-alone contract (no framework)
- Competition type
- Competitive procedure
- GPA / WTO covered
- Unspecified in notice
- Recurring procurement
- Unspecified in notice
- First published
- 23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST
- Last source update
- 23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST
- Authority reference
21264- FTS notice number
2026/S 000-090315- Latest notice
- Tender notice (UK4)
- Classification (CPV)
- Delivery area
- Official registry OCID
ocds-h6vhtk-0778fcFind a Tender
- Reserved participation area
- E10000017
How to participate & submission route
Official notice Submit via ProContract (Due North)- Requests to participate (first stage)
- —
- Tender submission deadline
- 30 Oct 2026, 12:00 GMT
- Clarification deadline
- 20 Oct 2026, 17:00 BST
- Submission channel
- Official e-sourcing portal
- Electronic submission
- Allowed
Timeline
23 Sept 2026 → 1 Dec 2026 · 4 dates- Tender notice published33 days ago23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST
- Clarification questions by6 days ago20 Oct 2026, 17:00 BST
- Today26 Oct 2026
- Submission deadlinein 4 days30 Oct 2026, 12:00 GMT
- Contract startsin 35 days1 Dec 2026
Notice history
1 event · 1 release on Find a Tender- Tender notice published23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BSTUK4
Commercial outcome & contract awards
Nothing awarded yet- Awards (0)
- No award published
- Contracts (0)
- No contract published
- Bid statistics
- No aggregate bid statistics published
Contracting authority & participating public bodies
Official documents & specifications (2)
Official links; attachments are not copiedTender pack and attachments
- Bidding documents and specifications Brief Description of specification
Notices published for this procedure
- Tender notice Tender notice on Find a Tender