Official UK procurement notice
Mayoral Attendant/Chauffeur · UK public procurement notice
Authority: St Helens Council (Local council)
Sectors: Business Services & Consultancy (79) Delivery: North West (UKD4)
Published estimate£150,000≈ £50k / year · £180,000 inc. VAT
Submissions closed 30 Oct 2026
Contract term 3 yrsends 30 Nov 2029 · up to 30 Nov 2031 with extensions · starts 1 Dec 2026
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
Pre-qualification & selection criteria (PQQ)1
- 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).
How bids were scored
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%
Conditions of participation1
- 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 this means for your bid
- Price carries 30 of 100 points: a 10% discount moves about 3 points. The method statement decides this lot, not the discount.
Price arithmetic assumes straight proportional scoring; the tender pack may use another formula.
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
- Closed
- 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
Contract terms
- Reserved participation area
- E10000017
How it was run
Official noticeRun through: ProContract (Due North) · Who buys & how to bid on ProContract
Access & registration note: Free · short registration with manual review; public opportunity list
- 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
Detailed submission instructions & authority contactsFrom official release
Timeline
23 Sept 2026 → 1 Dec 2026 · 4 dates- Tender notice published47 days ago23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST
- Clarification questions by20 days ago20 Oct 2026, 17:00 BST
- Submission deadline10 days ago30 Oct 2026, 12:00 GMT
- Today9 Nov 2026
- Contract startsin 21 days1 Dec 2026
Notice history
1 event · 1 release on Find a Tender- Tender notice published23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BSTUK4
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