Official UK procurement notice
Rutland County Museum Brand Identity and Website
Authority: Rutland County Council (Local council)
What is being bought
Published requirement descriptionRutland County Council wishes to appoint a suitably qualified supplier to develop a distinctive and sustainable brand identity for Rutland County Museum, and a modern, accessible website informed by and reflecting that identity.
CPV: World wide web (www) site design services
The lotProcurement structure
single lot · value publishedLot #1Published value£30,000
- Value
- £30,000 exc. VAT · £30,600 inc. VAT
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).
Lot awarding rule: Award Criteria Each bid will be evaluated on the following quality and price weightings: 1. Quality: 60% 2. Price: 40% Scoring Scale Each quality question will be scored on a scale of 0 to 5: Scoring scale for award criteria 0 Unacceptable - the response raises major concerns about understanding or approach, which are potentially highly detrimental to satisfactory service delivery or contract performance. 1 Poor - the response suggests significant shortcomings of understanding or approach, which may impact adversely on service delivery or contract performance. 2 Acceptable - the response suggests minor shortcomings of understanding or approach, which may impact to a small extent on service delivery or contract performance. 3 Good - the response raises no concerns about service delivery or contract performance. 4 Very Good - the response is fully compliant and raises no concerns about service delivery or contract performance. The response offers tangible benefits beyond acceptable standards or expectations. 5 Excellent - the response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates innovative solutions and/or tangible benefits beyond acceptable standards or expectations.
No conditions of participation were published on the notice; check the tender documents.
- Turnover usually expected at this size: about £60,000 (twice the annual value).
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 Rutland County Council buys Provider services (CPV 7241) — and who usually turns up
Rutland County Council’s own published record, next to the East Midlands market for the same work. Frameworks and DPS are kept out: they attract a different number of bids. Whole-market view: Provider services (CPV 7241) →
How the contest usually goes
This buyer’s published record next to the market where the work is delivered — contested contracts only, counted per lot
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 registered in East Midlands.
A local branch does not count if the registered address is elsewhere.
Most of this buyer’s recorded winners are registered outside East Midlands.
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 40 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 bid0% / 9%
2–320% / 27%
4–620% / 34%
7+60% / 30%
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 estimate15% / 40%
Within ±2%69% / 40%
Above estimate15% / 21%
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 7241Published estimate£30,000
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. The bar shows 89 past lots.
A forecast, not a list of bidders.
1 bid9%
2–327%
4–634%
7+30%
i
Where the winning price may land.
The forecast uses similar awards and the buyer’s estimate. The band covers the middle half of likely prices.
No comparable awards for this lot yet.
A guide, not a price to bid.
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 | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | ||||
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | ||||
Coverage and what to read with care
- Each figure 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 sides are never blended. A lot’s own market is read at its delivery region where the lot names one; where it names several, or none that can be resolved, the chart falls back to the UK-wide record for the same category and says so under the bar. An empty cell means the source published nothing usable. Long form: Methodology.
- When we call out a difference. A buyer figure is only flagged against the market when the sample is large enough that the gap is unlikely to be chance; at most two callouts appear, always phrased as a comparison with both numbers and the sample size.
- Coverage (re-measured 5 Oct on the live record, 94,497 awarded procedures of the last three years). 51 % publish a bid count and 72 % a delivery region, so the market column reads the authority’s registered region when the notice names none, labelled. Of the 17,687 award-vs-estimate pairs, 34 % sit exactly on the estimate — the buyer published the award at the figure it advertised. n is on every figure; a thin sample is muted, never hidden, and a distribution is not drawn as percentages below ten observations.
- “Match”, text similarity, the expected-bid figure and the distribution drawn beneath it are model outputs, not published facts or win probabilities. 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
- Light touch regime
- Commercial structure
- Stand-alone contract (no framework)
- Competition type
- Competitive procedure
- GPA / WTO covered
- Unspecified in notice
- Recurring procurement
- Unspecified in notice
- First published
- 9 Oct 2026, 12:08 BST
- Last source update
- 9 Oct 2026, 12:08 BST
- FTS notice number
2026/S 000-095616- Latest notice
- Tender notice (UK4)
- Classification (CPV)
- Delivery area
- Official registry OCID
ocds-h6vhtk-0784a9Find a Tender
- Reserved participation area
- K02000001
How to participate & submission route
Official notice Submit via ProContract (Due North)- Requests to participate (first stage)
- —
- Tender submission deadline
- 30 Oct 2026, 23:59 GMT
- Clarification deadline
- 23 Oct 2026, 23:59 BST
- Submission channel
- Official e-sourcing portal
- Electronic submission
- Allowed
Timeline
4 published dates · Europe/London- Tender notice published1 day ago9 Oct 2026, 12:08 BST
- Clarification questions byin 14 days23 Oct 2026, 23:59 BST
- Submission deadlinein 21 days30 Oct 2026, 23:59 GMT
- Contract startsin 52 days1 Dec 2026
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
2 events · 1 release on Find a Tender · since 9 Oct 2026- Tender notice published9 Oct 2026, 12:08 BSTUK4
- First tender notice published9 Oct 2026, 12:08 BST
Contracting authority & participating public bodies
Official documents & specifications (2)
Official links; attachments are not copiedTender pack and attachments
- Bidding documents and specifications Rutland County Council wishes to appoint a suitably qualified supplier to develop a distinctive and sustainable brand identity for Rutland County Museum, and a modern, accessible website informed by and reflecting that identity.
Notices published for this procedure
- Tender notice Tender notice on Find a Tender