Find a TenderPlanned procurementPreliminary market engagement notice
Published 28 Apr 2026, 11:18 BST

Official UK procurement notice

Supporting Transport for Greater Manchester in Shaping a TfGM Owned Unified Data Model (UDM)

Authority: Transport for Greater Manchester (Public body)

ServicesBelow thresholdSME suitable
Planned pipeline value£200,000pipeline notice, not a live tender
Tender notice expected Date not publishedfrom the planned procurement notice
Contract term 5 moends 1 Jan 2027 · starts 1 Aug 2026

What is being bought

Published requirement description

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) is seeking to engage with the market to inform the development of a TfGM owned Unified Data Model (UDM) that will provide a robust, reusable data foundation for the Bee Network and wider organisational needs.

TfGM manages a complex, multi modal transport network covering highways, bus, tram, and active travel, supported by a diverse technology estate and multiple third party suppliers. TfGM is increasingly dependent on timely, reliable and coherent data to support operational decision making, performance management, planning, and future digital capabilities.

This engagement seeks to draw on market experience and expertise to help TfGM refine its thinking, validate assumptions, and shape a sustainable approach to developing and governing a UDM that can meet both current and future business objectives.

Strategic Context

TfGM has defined three strategic objectives for the Bee Network and the wider organisation by 2030:

  1. Create a single view of the transport network across modes and operational domains
  2. Establish a single source of truth for operational, performance and asset information
  3. Develop a digital twin capability to support planning, simulation and assurance

TfGM recognises that achieving these objectives requires a strong and coherent data foundation, rather than a dependence on individual systems or suppliers.

A TfGM owned Unified Data Model is being explored as a key enabler that can:

  • Provide a canonical representation of the transport network and its components
  • Support consistent interpretation of data across systems and functional areas
  • Enable reuse of data across operational, analytical and strategic use cases
  • Underpin digital twin capabilities over time

Unified Data Model (UDM) - Current Thinking

TfGM is exploring the establishment of a TfGM owned and governed Unified Data Model, defined at a conceptual and logical level, independent of any single vendor or technology.

Key principles being considered include:

  • The UDM represents core network entities, events, states and relationships in a consistent and extensible way
  • It acts as a canonical or reference model, against which data from multiple sources and platforms can be aligned
  • It is owned and governed by TfGM, allowing long term stability and control
  • It is designed to support both real time and historical views of the transport network

While initial thinking has been informed by Highways together with Operational Control Centre use cases, TfGM is now considering the need to evolve this thinking into a business wide UDM, capable of supporting a much broader range of consumers and use cases across the organisation.

Relationship to Vendor Provided Solutions

TfGM anticipates that different suppliers may provide solutions that utilise their own internal or proprietary data models.

The intent of a TfGM owned UDM is not to replace or mandate supplier data models, but to:

  • Enable federation, mapping or abstraction across multiple vendor data models
  • Facilitate portability of data and capability between solutions over time
  • Reduce dependency on tightly coupled, proprietary representations of TfGM's network
  • Support coexistence of multiple platforms while maintaining a consistent enterprise view

TfGM is therefore particularly interested in approaches that allow vendor solutions to:

  • Integrate with, publish to, or consume from a TfGM UDM
  • Map or transform data between proprietary models and the TfGM canonical model
  • Operate independently while still contributing to a single, coherent picture of the network

Business Drivers and Challenges

TfGM is seeking to address a number of challenges through this work, including:

  • Fragmented and inconsistent representations of the transport network across systems
  • Duplication of data modelling effort between projects and suppliers
  • Difficulty reusing data across operational, analytical and planning contexts
  • Limited ability to decouple strategic data assets from individual vendor solutions
  • Risk of long term vendor lock in as new platforms are introduced

The UDM is seen as a potential mechanism to centralise meaning without centralising systems, enabling TfGM to evolve its digital landscape in a controlled and flexible manner.

Purpose of this Market Engagement

TfGM is not undertaking a procurement through this engagement.

The purpose is to engage with organisations that have experience supporting large, complex, data intensive organisations to:

  • Shape, validate or implement unified or canonical data models
  • Align data architecture with long term digital strategy and roadmaps
  • Design governance models that balance consistency with flexibility
  • Enable interoperability across supplier ecosystems

TfGM wishes to use this engagement to test and refine its thinking around:

  • Whether a TfGM owned UDM is the right strategic approach
  • How such a model should be scoped, structured and governed
  • How it should evolve from domain specific (e.g. Highways) to enterprise wide
  • How it can practically support digital twin ambitions over time

What TfGM Is Asking the Market to Respond To

Suppliers are invited to provide high level responses covering:

  • Relevant experience of delivering or supporting unified data models or similar constructs at scale
  • How they would support TfGM in shaping, validating or maturing a TfGM owned UDM
  • How a UDM can support:

o Federation across multiple vendor platforms

o Portability of data and capability over time

o Long term digital twin development

  • Views on governance, ownership and change control for an enterprise UDM
  • What a typical engagement and delivery model might look like (e.g. discovery, assurance, roadmap definition)

Responses should focus on approach, principles and experience, rather than promotion of specific proprietary products or platforms.

Next Steps

Feedback from this market engagement will be used to inform TfGM's future strategy, roadmap and potential commissioning of advisory or delivery support for building a strong data foundation.

Participation in this engagement does not guarantee involvement in any subsequent procurement.

CPV: IT services: consulting, software development, Internet and support · Software package and information systems

The lotProcurement structure

single lot · no lot value published

Pipeline intelligence · planning stage: how this market runs before the tender is published

How Transport for Greater Manchester buys Software package and information systems (CPV 48), and who usually turns up

Transport for Greater Manchester’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: Software package and information systems (CPV 48) →

1

How the contest usually goes

Winner shares use published awards; bid and price charts use contested lots.

Question for the bid
This buyerTransport for Greater Manchester · division 48
The marketSoftware package and information systems (CPV 48) · North West England (authority’s region)
What to do with it
How often do SMEs win?
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.

Last 36 months.

Buyer: 0 of 1 known-size awards · market: division 48 · North West England (authority’s region), n=435
0 of 133%

No small-firm winners recorded among this authority’s published awards in this sample.

How often do local suppliers win?
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 North West England (authority’s region).

A local branch does not count if the registered address is elsewhere.

Last 36 months.

Buyer: 0 of 1 known-location awards · market: division 48 · North West England (authority’s region), n=553
0 of 112%

Most of this buyer’s recorded winners are registered outside North West England.

How long to a decision?
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.

Last 36 months.

Buyer: 11 decided notices · market: division 48 · North West England (authority’s region), n=43
77 days56 days

Half of these awards were announced within 77 days of the bid deadline.

How often single-bid or direct?
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.

Last 36 months.

Buyer: at least 1 of 6 procurements with awards had no recorded rival · market: division 48 · North West England (authority’s region), n=670
17%66%

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.

Last 36 months.

This buyer20 lots with bid counts · all categories
0% had one bid
The market60 lots with bid counts · division 48 · North West England (authority’s region)
13% had one bid
Buyer / market · select a colour for counts
1 bid0% / 13%
Buyer: 0 of 20 lots with published bid counts. Market: 8 of 60 lots with published bid counts.
2–330% / 25%
Buyer: 6 of 20 lots with published bid counts. Market: 15 of 60 lots with published bid counts.
4–660% / 37%
Buyer: 12 of 20 lots with published bid counts. Market: 22 of 60 lots with published bid counts.
7+10% / 25%
Buyer: 2 of 20 lots with published bid counts. Market: 15 of 60 lots with published bid counts.

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.

Last 36 months.

This buyer15 lots with estimate and award · all categories
53% below estimate
The market35 lots with estimate and award · division 48 · North West England (authority’s region)
54% below estimate
Buyer / market · select a colour for counts
Below estimate53% / 54%
Buyer: 8 of 15 lots with an estimate and award. Market: 19 of 35 lots with an estimate and award.
Within ±2%20% / 23%
Buyer: 3 of 15 lots with an estimate and award. Market: 8 of 35 lots with an estimate and award.
Above estimate27% / 23%
Buyer: 4 of 15 lots with an estimate and award. Market: 8 of 35 lots with an estimate and award.
2

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.

Open a lot for its forecast, this buyer’s previous supplier and possible competitors, from published award history, not a bid list

Lot #15 monthsSME suitablePublished estimate£200k
Expected competition
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 60 past lots.

A forecast, not a list of bidders.

—No model forecast yet13% single-bid risk
Past bids on 60 similar lots
1 bid13%
8 of 60 similar past lots received 1 bid (13%).
2–325%
15 of 60 similar past lots received 2–3 (25%).
4–637%
22 of 60 similar past lots received 4–6 (37%).
7+25%
15 of 60 similar past lots received 7+ (25%).
Comparable past lots usually drew 4 bids.
Commercial price forecast
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.

No comparable awards for this lot yet.

A statistical guide from past awards, not a price to bid.

—No model forecast yet
No comparable awards on record for this lot’s category yet. The published estimate is £200k, and the forecast stays empty until the market has a record to read.

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.

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.

Candidate suppliers for this notice have not been worked out yet, so this is not a verdict that nobody fits.

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
Legal basis
UKPGA · 2023/54 Procurement Act 2023
Procurement category
Services
Notice status
Planned procurement
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
28 Apr 2026, 11:18 BST
Last source update
28 Apr 2026, 11:18 BST
FTS notice number
2026/S 000-038431
Latest notice
Preliminary market engagement notice (UK2)
Classification (CPV)
IT services: consulting, software development, Internet and supportSoftware package and information systems
Delivery area
UK
Official registry OCID
ocds-h6vhtk-068c6d Find a Tender

How it was run

Official notice
Submission deadline
—

Timeline

28 Apr 2026 → 1 Aug 2026 · 3 dates
  1. Planning notice published175 days ago
    28 Apr 2026, 11:18 BST
  2. Market engagement144 days ago
    29 May 2026, 23:59 BST

    Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) is seeking to engage with the market to inform the development of a TfGM owned Unified Data Model (UDM) that will provide a robust, reusable data foundation for the Bee Network and wider organisational needs.

    TfGM manages a complex, multi modal transport network covering highways, bus, tram, and active travel, supported by a diverse technology estate and multiple third party suppliers. TfGM is increasingly dependent on timely, reliable and coherent data to support operational decision making, performance management, planning, and future digital capabilities.

    This engagement seeks to draw on market experience and expertise to help TfGM refine its thinking, validate assumptions, and shape a sustainable approach to developing and governing a UDM that can meet both current and future business objectives.

    TfGM has defined three strategic objectives for the Bee Network and the wider organisation by 2030:

    1. Create a single view of the transport network across modes and operational domains
    2. Establish a single source of truth for operational, performance and asset information
    3. Develop a digital twin capability to support planning, simulation and assurance

    TfGM recognises that achieving these objectives requires a strong and coherent data foundation, rather than a dependence on individual systems or suppliers.

    A TfGM owned Unified Data Model is being explored as a key enabler that can:

    • Provide a canonical representation of the transport network and its components
    • Support consistent interpretation of data across systems and functional areas
    • Enable reuse of data across operational, analytical and strategic use cases
    • Underpin digital twin capabilities over time

    TfGM is exploring the establishment of a TfGM owned and governed Unified Data Model, defined at a conceptual and logical level, independent of any single vendor or technology.

    Key principles being considered include:

    • The UDM represents core network entities, events, states and relationships in a consistent and extensible way
    • It acts as a canonical or reference model, against which data from multiple sources and platforms can be aligned
    • It is owned and governed by TfGM, allowing long term stability and control
    • It is designed to support both real time and historical views of the transport network

    While initial thinking has been informed by Highways together with Operational Control Centre use cases, TfGM is now considering the need to evolve this thinking into a business wide UDM, capable of supporting a much broader range of consumers and use cases across the organisation.

    TfGM anticipates that different suppliers may provide solutions that utilise their own internal or proprietary data models.

    The intent of a TfGM owned UDM is not to replace or mandate supplier data models, but to:

    • Enable federation, mapping or abstraction across multiple vendor data models
    • Facilitate portability of data and capability between solutions over time
    • Reduce dependency on tightly coupled, proprietary representations of TfGM's network
    • Support coexistence of multiple platforms while maintaining a consistent enterprise view

    TfGM is therefore particularly interested in approaches that allow vendor solutions to:

    • Integrate with, publish to, or consume from a TfGM UDM
    • Map or transform data between proprietary models and the TfGM canonical model
    • Operate independently while still contributing to a single, coherent picture of the network

    TfGM is seeking to address a number of challenges through this work, including:

    • Fragmented and inconsistent representations of the transport network across systems
    • Duplication of data modelling effort between projects and suppliers
    • Difficulty reusing data across operational, analytical and planning contexts
    • Limited ability to decouple strategic data assets from individual vendor solutions
    • Risk of long term vendor lock in as new platforms are introduced

    The UDM is seen as a potential mechanism to centralise meaning without centralising systems, enabling TfGM to evolve its digital landscape in a controlled and flexible manner.

    TfGM is not undertaking a procurement through this engagement.

    The purpose is to engage with organisations that have experience supporting large, complex, data intensive organisations to:

    • Shape, validate or implement unified or canonical data models
    • Align data architecture with long term digital strategy and roadmaps
    • Design governance models that balance consistency with flexibility
    • Enable interoperability across supplier ecosystems

    TfGM wishes to use this engagement to test and refine its thinking around:

    • Whether a TfGM owned UDM is the right strategic approach
    • How such a model should be scoped, structured and governed
    • How it should evolve from domain specific (e.g. Highways) to enterprise wide
    • How it can practically support digital twin ambitions over time

    Suppliers are invited to provide high level responses covering:

    • Relevant experience of delivering or supporting unified data models or similar constructs at scale
    • How they would support TfGM in shaping, validating or maturing a TfGM owned UDM
    • How a UDM can support:

    o Federation across multiple vendor platforms

    o Portability of data and capability over time

    o Long term digital twin development

    • Views on governance, ownership and change control for an enterprise UDM
    • What a typical engagement and delivery model might look like (e.g. discovery, assurance, roadmap definition)

    Responses should focus on approach, principles and experience, rather than promotion of specific proprietary products or platforms.

  3. Contract starts81 days ago
    1 Aug 2026, 00:00 BST

Notice history

1 event · 1 release on Find a Tender
  1. Preliminary market engagement notice published
    28 Apr 2026, 11:18 BST
    UK2

Commercial outcome & contract awards

Pipeline notice
Awards (0)
No award published
Contracts (0)
No contract published
Bid statistics
No aggregate bid statistics published

Contracting authority & participating public bodies

Transport for Greater Manchester

Contracting authorityPublic authority - sub-central government GB-PPON: PNJQ-2746-NWYT 2 Piccadilly Place, Manchester, North West, M1 3BGContact email

Official documents & specifications (1)

Official links; attachments are not copied

Notices published for this procedure