Public procurement notice: Contract Award Notice
Published: 2020-12-15
Buyer: Education Scotland
Country: UK
Contract type: Services
Procedure: Competitive procedure with negotiation
CPV classification: 72212730 | 72222300: Information technology services
Estimated value: 841250 GBP
Award criteria: The most economic tender

Technical requirements: To enhance the existing safety and security of Glow, Education Scotland has a requirement to place a contract with an external service provider for the creation and ongoing support of a bespoke safeguarding product and services to function within Scotland's national digital learning platform known as Glow.
Education Scotland wishes to further strengthen the safety and security of Scotland's national digital learning platform known as Glow and has a requirement to place a contract with an external service provider for the creation and ongoing support of a bespoke safeguarding product and service to function within Glow.
The safeguarding product and service will be used to monitor and alert on the activity, interaction and behaviour of users within this environment.
The Glow environment’s core components are Office 365, G Suite and WordPress. The Glow environment is accessed via corporate and personal devices, as such the product should have the capability to monitor these environments and not be device specific (not require software to be loaded on the users’ endpoint).
Education Scotland would welcome an initial proposal for the creation and ongoing support of a safeguarding product and service including but not limited to the following capabilities within the Office 365, G Suite and WordPress environment:
Economic operators may be excluded from this competition if they are in any of the situations referred to in Regulation 58 of the Public Contracts (Scotland) 2015.
0 = Unacceptable. Nil or inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate previous experience/capacity/capability relevant to this criterion.
1 = Poor. Response is partially relevant but generally poor. The response shows some elements of relevance to the criterion but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate previous relevant experience/ capacity/capability.
2 = Acceptable. Response is relevant and acceptable. The response demonstrates broad previous experience, knowledge and skills/capacity/capability but may lack in some aspects of similarity e.g. previous experience, knowledge or skills may not be of a similar nature.
3 = Good. Response is relevant and good. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good amount of experience, knowledge or skills/capacity/capability relevant to providing similar services to similar clients.
4 = Excellent. Response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates thorough experience, knowledge or skills/capacity/capability relevant to providing similar services to similar clients.
0 = Unacceptable. Nil or inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate an ability to meet the requirement.
1 = Poor. Response is partially relevant and poor. The response addresses some elements of the requirement but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate how the requirement will be fulfilled.
2 = Acceptable. Response is relevant and acceptable. The response addresses a broad understanding of the requirement but may lack details on how the requirement will be fulfilled in certain areas.
3 = Good. Response is relevant and good. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good understanding and provides details on how the requirement will be fulfilled.


Winner: Seric Systems Ltd
Award value: 841250
Number of bids: 2