Official UK procurement notice
Effect of probiotics on Campylobacter colonisation within the broiler gut
Authority: Food Standards Agency (Central government)
What is being bought
Published requirement descriptionA key component of the FSA work is to reduce the burden of foodborne disease in the UK. Campylobacter is the leading bacterial cause of foodborne disease in the UK, with chicken meat being the most common food source of exposure to this pathogen. Campylobacter is widespread in chicken farms, with 60% of UK broilers flocks carrying the pathogen at the point they are slaughtered. Interventions further down the food chain do not reliably eliminate this pathogen. Therefore, reducing Campylobacter colonisation on broiler flocks and contamination on chicken meat is a priority area for the FSA as this will contribute towards reducing human exposure and subsequent reported cases of foodborne disease.
A clear evidence gap remains on whether probiotics can consistently affect Campylobacter levels in broilers, across commercial UK farms under routine production conditions, and what magnitude of log reduction is realistically achievable.
To address this evidence gap, the FSA are seeking research proposals for an innovative field-trial based study carried out in real-life intensive broiler houses to assess the effectiveness of a range of probiotics on reducing or delaying Campylobacter colonisation in the gut of broiler flocks. The research should be designed to answer the following questions:
- “To what extent can commercially available probiotic formulations reduce or delay Campylobacter colonisation in broiler flocks under commercial intensive housed farming conditions, and does this translate into reduced Campylobacter contamination of carcasses at processing?”
- “What is the effect of these formulations on welfare and production performance indicators such as mortality, growth rate, feed conversion efficiency and flock health outcomes?”
We envisage that the proposed study design will consist of several discrete phases.
Given the complexity of controlling Campylobacter in broiler flocks, we would like the inclusion of break clauses at the end of key deliverables to allow sufficient time for the FSA, together with the researcher team, to review the phase findings and determine whether there is sufficient evidence and justification to proceed to the next stage of the project. If not, then the FSA reserves the right to terminate the project.
- No preliminary market engagement: No Preliminary Market Engagement (UK2) Notice was published because no formal preliminary market engagement was undertaken with suppliers prior to commencing the procurement. The requirement and procurement strategy were sufficiently defined without the need for pre-market engagement, and therefore publication of a UK2 Notice was not considered necessary.
CPV: Animal husbandry services · Chickens · Laboratory services · Poultry products · Research and development services and related consultancy services · Research and experimental development services · Research consultancy services · Research services · Veterinary services
The lotProcurement structure
single lot · value publishedLot #1RenewalPublished value£500,000
- Economic & financial standing
Standard PSQ
- Technical & professional ability
See Specification
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 (2)
- Technical: 80%
- Commercial: 20%
Published award criteria (2)
- Technical: The extent to which the bidder demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirement and provides a robust, credible, and deliverable methodology. Responses will be evaluated against the quality of the proposed approach, technical capability, relevant experience, project management arrangements, risk management, resources, and ability to achieve the required outcomes and deliverables. Scoring methodology will be provided in the specification.
- Commercial: Commercial / Value for Money (20%) – Assessment of the bidder's proposed pricing and overall value for money. Evaluation will consider the transparency, reasonableness and competitiveness of costs, ensuring that the proposed solution delivers the required outcomes and quality standards while providing the best value for public funds. Scoring methodology will be provided in the specification
- Economic & financial standing
Standard PSQ
- Technical & professional ability
See Specification
- Price carries 20 of 100 points: a 10% discount moves about 2 points. The method statement decides this lot, not the discount.
- Turnover usually expected at this size: about £499,316 (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 Food Standards Agency buys Meat (CPV 1511), and who usually turns up
Food Standards Agency’s own published record, next to the published market for the same work. Frameworks and DPS are kept out: they attract a different number of bids. Whole-market view: Meat (CPV 1511) →
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.
Here, local means the winner is registered in the region where that contract was delivered.
A local branch does not count if the registered address is elsewhere.
No winner locations published for this authority. Local means a registered address in Yorkshire and the Humber.
i
How long buyers here take to decide after bids close.
Middle value in days from the deadline to the first award notice, on competitions that published both dates.
Only decided tenders count, so slow ones still waiting are not in.
Half of these awards were announced within 30 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.
Direct awards or one recorded bid are common here. Check the route before spending time on a bid.
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 bid57% / 33%
2–329% / 11%
4–610% / 56%
7+5% / 0%
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 estimate52% / 0%
Within ±2%35% / 92%
Above estimate13% / 8%
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 1511Published estimate£500k
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 bid30%
2–323%
4–644%
7+2%
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 18 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%£423k–£500k
Estimate£500k
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.
| Supplier | This buyer’s earlier contract | Lot | Award value | Why listed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chartered Trading Standards InstituteWorked for this buyer | Improving Local Authority Delivery of Animal Feed and Food Hygiene at the Level of Primary Production Official Controls in 2026-27notice published Jul 2026 | — | — | Similar wording and category |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| £200m20 awards in 36m · last 8 months ago | 5 live · £37m 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. | 15% below n=22 | |
APETITO LIMITEDLarge | £1.9m10 awards in 36m · last 4 months ago | 2 live · £92k 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. | 13% below n=2 |
| £189k2 awards in 36m · last 4 months ago | 3 live · £495k 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. | 40% below n=1 | |
| £1.5m5 awards in 36m · last 19 months ago | 1 live · £572k 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 | |
McLays LtdSME | 3 awards in 36m · last 21 months ago | None on file | 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
- Open procedure
- Legal basis
- UKPGA · 2023/54 Procurement Act 2023
- Procurement category
- Services
- Notice status
- Open for tender
- Procurement threshold
- Above threshold (FTS publication)
- Regulatory regime
- Standard
- Commercial structure
- Stand-alone contract (no framework)
- Competition type
- Competitive procedure
- GPA / WTO covered
- Yes (GPA)
- Recurring procurement
- Unspecified in notice
- First published
- 23 Jul 2026, 20:17 BST
- Last source update
- 19 Oct 2026, 12:32 BST
- Award evaluation window
- Submission end – 14 Dec 2026
- Authority reference
C461206- FTS notice number
2026/S 000-098446- Latest notice
- Tender notice (UK4)
- Classification (CPV)
- Delivery area
- Not published
- Official registry OCID
ocds-h6vhtk-06d290Find a Tender- Contract terms summary
Payment of undisputed invoices will be made within 30 days of receipt of invoice, which must be submitted promptly by the Supplier.
All invoices must be sent, quoting a valid Purchase Order Number (PO Number).
Within 10 Working Days of receipt of your countersigned copy of this Order Form, we will send you a unique PO Number. You must be in receipt of a valid PO Number before submitting an invoice.
To avoid delay in payment it is important that the invoice is compliant and that it includes a valid PO Number, item number (if applicable) and the details (name, email, and telephone number) of your Buyer contact (i.e. Buyer Authorised Repre-sentative). Non-compliant invoices may be sent back to you, which may lead to a delay in payment.
- Risks
Risks associated with a scientific services project of this nature may include, but are not limited to, delays in project delivery, budgetary pressures, changes in scope or requirements, difficulties in obtaining representative samples, sampling plan amendments, sample quality or availability issues, laboratory capacity constraints, analytical method development and validation challenges, equipment failure, data quality concerns, regulatory or legislative changes, stakeholder availability, and delays in the provision of information, materials or approvals.
Additional risks may include difficulties securing access to farms, animals, facilities or study sites; disease outbreaks or biosecurity restrictions impacting sampling activities; seasonal or environmental factors affecting sample collection; staff turnover or loss of key personnel; subcontractor performance issues; supply chain disruptions affecting equipment, consumables or laboratory reagents; ethical or governance approval delays; data management, storage or information security issues; and challenges in reproducing or validating scientific findings.
Given the phased nature of the project, there is also a risk that the findings, evidence generated or outcomes achieved during an individual phase may not provide sufficient scientific justification, value for money, or confidence to progress to subsequent phases. Break points will therefore be included at the completion of key deliverables to enable the Authority and the research team to review progress, assess findings and determine whether continuation to the next phase remains appropriate.
There is also a risk that research findings or analytical results may not generate the expected outcomes, requiring additional investigation, testing, refinement of methodologies or revisions to the proposed approach. Suppliers will be expected to identify, manage and mitigate such risks throughout the contract lifecycle to ensure delivery of the agreed objectives, timelines and outputs while maintaining scientific quality and robustness.
How to participate & submission route
Official notice Submit via Atamis legacy domain (health-family.force.com)- Requests to participate (first stage)
- —
- Tender submission deadline
- 30 Nov 2026, 12:00 GMT
- Clarification deadline
- 11 Nov 2026, 12:00 GMT
- Submission channel
- Official e-sourcing portal
- Electronic submission
- Allowed
- Accepted languages
- en
Tenders for FSA funded projects must be submitted through the health-family single e-Commercial System (Atamis), using the following link: health-family.force.com/s/Welcome ↗
Timeline
23 Jul 2026 → 1 Apr 2027 · 7 dates- Planning notice published89 days ago23 Jul 2026, 20:17 BST
- Next notice expected49 days ago1 Sept 2026, 23:59 BST
- Tender notice published1 day ago19 Oct 2026, 12:32 BST
- Today20 Oct 2026
- Clarification questions byin 22 days11 Nov 2026, 12:00 GMT
- Submission deadlinein 41 days30 Nov 2026, 12:00 GMT
- Award decision expected byin 55 days14 Dec 2026, 23:59 GMT
- Contract startsin 162 days1 Apr 2027, 00:00 BST
Notice history
4 events · 2 releases on Find a Tender · since 23 Jul 2026- Planned procurement notice published23 Jul 2026, 20:17 BSTUK3
- Tender notice published19 Oct 2026, 12:32 BSTUK4
- Status changed to active19 Oct 2026, 12:32 BST
- Deadline moved to 30 Nov 2026, 12:00 GMT19 Oct 2026, 12:32 BST+48 days · was 13 Oct 2026, 12:00 BST
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 copiedNotices published for this procedure
- Tender notice Tender notice on Find a Tender
- Planned procurement notice Planned procurement notice on Find a Tender