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 #1Lot 1RenewalPublished value£150,000
- Value
- £150,000 exc. VAT · £180,000 inc. VAT
- Extensions
- 12 month extensions to provide coverage while tendering and or electoral issues
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 participationThe Tender is open to suppliers with in the St. Helens city region and to suppliers based in Lancashire and Merseyside
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 own published record, next to the North West England market for the same work. Frameworks and DPS are kept out: they attract a different number of bids. Whole-market view: Security services (CPV 7971) →
How the contest usually goes
Left: this authority. Right: the market where the work is delivered. Bids and award-vs-estimate pairs are per lot, from contested contracts only — direct awards (including PA 2023 transparency notices) report one bid by definition and are left out. On Procurement Act 2023 notices the count is the tenders assessed at the final stage, not every submission received; pairs compare like with like (VAT-exclusive, or VAT-inclusive on both sides). Empty means nothing was published, not filled in from elsewhere.
St Helens Council
contract notices in 36 months: 1 in CPV 7971 · 5 in division 79 · 90 in all categories (10 without competition · 20 route not published)
i
How many companies usually bid for work like this.
Middle value of published bid counts, one per lot, for this buyer or this region in the same sector.
Based on this buyer’s tenders in all categories, last 36 months: 12 lots. 10 lots are from Procurement Act 2023 notices (bids assessed, middle 3) and 2 from older notices (bids received, middle 11).
Nothing is filled in from UK-wide numbers. An empty tile means nothing usable was published.
i
How often only one company bid.
Share of lots that received exactly one bid, on the same competitions as the bids figure.
Based on this buyer’s tenders in all categories, last 36 months: 12 lots.
High means a thin market or an incumbent that is hard to beat.
i
Do awards for work like this land above or below the estimate.
Estimate against award per lot, for this buyer or this region in the same sector.
Based on this buyer’s tenders in all categories, last 36 months: 20 pairs.
A past pattern, not a price to bid.
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.
Based on this buyer’s tenders in all categories, last 36 months: 10 notices.
Only decided tenders count, so slow ones still waiting are not in.
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 this buyer’s tenders in all categories, last 24 months: 106 notices.
i
How often this buyer awards without a competition.
Direct or limited awards as a share of its notices that say which procedure was used. These routes are legal in defined cases. This is just the record.
Based on this buyer’s tenders in this industry (CPV 79), last 36 months: 5 notices.
North West England · Security services (CPV 7971)
contract notices delivered in North West England in 36 months: 69 in CPV 7971 (51 competed, 10 route not published) · 707 in division 79 (473 competed, 122 route not published)
i
How many companies usually bid for work like this.
Middle value of published bid counts, one per lot, for this buyer or this region in the same sector.
Based on this region’s tenders in this sector (CPV 7971), last 36 months: 25 lots. 17 lots are from Procurement Act 2023 notices (bids assessed, middle 10) and 8 from older notices (bids received, middle 6).
Nothing is filled in from UK-wide numbers. An empty tile means nothing usable was published.
i
How often only one company bid.
Share of lots that received exactly one bid, on the same competitions as the bids figure.
Based on this region’s tenders in this sector (CPV 7971), last 36 months: 25 lots.
High means a thin market or an incumbent that is hard to beat.
i
Do awards for work like this land above or below the estimate.
Estimate against award per lot, for this buyer or this region in the same sector.
Based on this region’s tenders in this sector (CPV 7971), last 36 months: 14 pairs.
A past pattern, not a price to bid.
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.
Based on this region’s tenders in this sector (CPV 7971), last 36 months: 17 notices.
Only decided tenders count, so slow ones still waiting are not in.
i
How much of this market goes to small and medium firms.
SME bidders where buyers published the split, otherwise SME winners.
Based on this region’s tenders in this sector (CPV 7971), last 36 months: 19 lots.
i
How much work like this goes to companies based in the delivery region.
Awards in this category delivered here where the winner’s registered address is in the region.
Based on this region’s tenders in this sector (CPV 7971), last 36 months: 28 awards.
Registered address, so a national firm with a local branch counts as outside.
i
Where this tender’s estimate would land if the usual pattern repeats.
We apply the buyer’s usual movement between estimate and award (or the region’s) to the estimate on this notice.
Based on this buyer’s own usual movement over 20 lots (all categories), applied to the £150,000 estimate on this notice.
A benchmark, not a price to bid.
Coverage and what to read with care
- Each tile explains itself. The on a figure says what it is, how it is counted and which scope this notice’s own record came from (class, division, all categories, or the authority’s 24-month row). The two columns are never blended and nothing is filled from a UK-wide figure; an empty tile means the source published nothing usable. Long form: Methodology.
- Coverage. Roughly 40 % of notices publish a bid count; about half publish an ITL1 delivery location, so the market column reads the authority’s registered region when the notice has none (labelled). About 30 % of award-vs-estimate pairs are exact matches — the buyer published the award at the estimate. n is on every figure; a thin sample is muted, never hidden.
- “Match” and “relevance” are model scores from the nightly matcher, not published facts. Find a Tender does not publish who is bidding. Never shown: contact details, payment behaviour, or a recommended price.
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
- No (one-off requirement)
- First published
- 23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST
- Last source update
- 23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST
- Authority reference
21264- Latest notice
- Tender notice (UK4)
- Classification (CPV)
- Delivery area
- Official registry OCID
ocds-h6vhtk-0778fcFind a Tender
How to participate & submission route
Official notice Submit via ProContract (Due North)- Expression of interest (EOI)
- —
- 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
4 published dates · Europe/London- Tender notice published1 day ago23 Sept 2026, 16:43 BST
- Clarification questions byin 26 days20 Oct 2026, 17:00 BST
- Submission deadlinein 36 days30 Oct 2026, 12:00 GMT
- Contract startsin 68 days1 Dec 2026, 00:00 GMT
Commercial outcome & contract awards
Nothing awarded yet- Awards (0)
- No award published
- Contracts (0)
- No contract published
- Bid statistics
- No aggregate bid statistics published
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