Official UK procurement notice
TfGM Single View of the Network
Authority: Transport for Greater Manchester (Public body)
What is being bought
Published requirement descriptionTransport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) is seeking a cloud-hosted, AI-assisted Intelligent Transport Systems decision-support platform. The platform is intended to bring together and analyse real-time multimodal transport data, provide a unified operational view and support the development of a Single View of the Network. It will support 24/7 operational use by TfGM's Operational Control Centre and use by its Highways ITS and Urban Traffic Control teams.
• Improve incident detection, verification and prioritisation.
• Reduce manual data correlation and data hunting.
• Support coordinated operational responses and organisational learning.
• Provide a mature, configurable platform capable of integrating multiple operational data feeds and systems.
This will be a 3+1+1 term mid tier contract.
- Two-stage procedure: up to 4 candidates will be invited to tender.
- How the procedure runs: This a multiple stage competitive flexible procedure. All interested suppliers are invited to complete a submission to both the PSQ stage and the Main stage. As part of the PSQ stage, all suppliers will be evaluated but only the top 4 scoring suppliers will progress to the main stage, where they will have their Main stage submission evaluated. Following a review of the PSQ stage suppliers will be informed as to whether or not they have progressed to having their Main stage response evaluated. Additional steps at the main tender stage include the requirement for a system demonstration plus negotiation and further tender submission stages - some of these are optional and are outlined further in the tender documentation.
- No preliminary market engagement: A number of known and unknown suppliers of this service were contacted and asked to help with the procurement strategy for this project - this was done via an RFI document. It was done this way and not via the publishing of a preliminary market engagement notice in order to save time by only focusing on suppliers that could provide this type of service.
CPV: IT services: consulting, software development, Internet and support
The lotProcurement structure
single lot · value publishedLot #1RenewalPublished value£1,000,000
- Value
- £1,000,000 exc. VAT · £1,200,000 inc. VAT
- Extensions
- As per the relevant part of the Procurement Act 2023, TfGM reserves the right to switch this award to a direct award should a suitable supplier not be found via this process. The right to additional purchases while the contract is valid. The right to directly award a new contract to the chosen Tenderer at the end of the final extension period for this same services. This will be enacted to allow for the continuation of the service providing the existing supplier has provided the required service to the required levels, during this contract period. TfGM reserves the right to use Schedule 5 paragraph 8 of Procurement Act 2023 to do this. · x2 single year extensions are available should they be required.
- Second stage
- up to 4 candidates invited to tender
- Condition of participationCriteria detailed in PSQ stage document but is based on economical and technical elements and will include x3 scored questions. shortlisting
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 (4)
- Main Tender Stage - Technical — 45%
- Main Tender Stage - Demonstration — 5%
- Main Tender Stage - Commercial — 40%
- Main Tender Stage - Social Value — 10%
Published award criteria (4)
- Main Tender Stage - Technical
- Main Tender Stage - Demonstration
- Main Tender Stage - Social Value — The social value element on this tender is submitted via the Social Value Portal - details on how to do this are included in the tender pack of documents.
- Main Tender Stage - Commercial
- Condition of participationCriteria detailed in PSQ stage document but is based on economical and technical elements and will include x3 scored questions. shortlisting
- Price carries 40 of 100 points — a 10% discount moves about 4 points. The method statement decides this lot, not the discount.
- Turnover usually expected at this size: about £666,058 (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 Transport for Greater Manchester buys IT services: consulting, software, internet (CPV 72) — and who usually turns up
Transport for Greater Manchester’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: IT services: consulting, software, internet (CPV 72) →
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 North West England.
A local branch does not count if the registered address is elsewhere.
Most of this buyer’s recorded winners are registered outside North West England.
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 74 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.
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.
1 bid0% / 10%
2–335% / 33%
4–650% / 26%
7+15% / 31%
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 estimate33% / 38%
Within ±2%33% / 41%
Above estimate33% / 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 #1Published estimate£1,000,000
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 124 past lots.
A forecast, not a list of bidders.
1 bid10%
2–333%
4–626%
7+31%
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
- Competitive flexible procedure
- Legal basis
- UKPGA · 2023/54 Procurement Act 2023
- Procurement category
- Services
- Notice status
- Requests to participate open
- Procurement threshold
- Above threshold (FTS publication)
- 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
- 9 Oct 2026, 12:39 BST
- Last source update
- 9 Oct 2026, 12:39 BST
- Award evaluation window
- Submission end — 18 Jan 2027
- Authority reference
2026 / 236- FTS notice number
2026/S 000-095644- Latest notice
- Tender notice (UK4)
- Classification (CPV)
- Delivery area
- Official registry OCID
ocds-h6vhtk-0784baFind a Tender
- How it runs
- This a multiple stage competitive flexible procedure. All interested suppliers are invited to complete a submission to both the PSQ stage and the Main stage. As part of the PSQ stage, all suppliers will be evaluated but only the top 4 scoring suppliers will progress to the main stage, where they will have their Main stage submission evaluated. Following a review of the PSQ stage suppliers will be informed as to whether or not they have progressed to having their Main stage response evaluated. Additional steps at the main tender stage include the requirement for a system demonstration plus negotiation and further tender submission stages - some of these are optional and are outlined further in the tender documentation.
- Risks
- Change in existing platform or key components of that platform that this service will work with.
How to participate & submission route
Official notice Submit via ProContract (Due North)- Requests to participate (first stage)
- 20 Nov 2026, 15:00 GMT
- Tender submission deadline
- 20 Nov 2026, 15:00 GMT
- Clarification deadline
- —
- Submission channel
- Official e-sourcing portal
- Electronic submission
- Allowed
- Accepted languages
- en
- Shortlist
- up to 4 candidates invited to tender
Timeline
4 published dates · Europe/London- Tender notice published1 day ago9 Oct 2026, 12:39 BST
- Submission deadlinein 42 days20 Nov 2026, 15:00 GMT
- Award decision expected byin 101 days18 Jan 2027, 23:59 GMT
- Contract startsin 111 days29 Jan 2027
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, 12:39 BSTUK4
- First tender notice published9 Oct 2026, 12:39 BST
Contracting authority & participating public bodies
Official documents & specifications (1)
Official links; attachments are not copiedNotices published for this procedure
- Tender notice Tender notice on Find a Tender