A £0 value line, a 20-month window, and a CPV list that pulls in meters, data, and R&D in one breath. What is the buyer actually buying, and what does it mean for engineers writing a similar brief? [S1]
If you are drafting a smart-metering or EV charging specification, the interesting procurement signals here are not the headline figures. They are the CPV mix, the SBRI procedure, the SME-friendly stance, and the long tail between contract start and end. Each of those constrains how a spec should be written and how a supplier should respond. [S1]
Reading the header without the headline
The published value of £0 is the most misleading field on the notice. Under an SBRI open procedure, the contract value field is often left blank or zero where the buyer intends to award feasibility funding through a separate mechanism, or where downstream phases are unpriced. Treat the headline number as a formatting artefact, not a budget signal. [S1]
The procurement reference TRN2305/03/2020 is the only stable handle for cross-referencing supplier questions, clarifications, and the eventual award. Pin it into any spec you draft so internal teams can trace correspondence cleanly. [S1]
The contract window from 30 June 2020 to 28 February 2022 is wide for a single-phase award. That gap is typical of two-stage SBRI competitions where a short feasibility sprint is followed by a prototype or trial phase. Your spec should explicitly state deliverables at the end of month 6, month 12, and the final month, so the long tail does not become a drifting scope. [S1]
What the CPV mix actually says
The eight CPV codes are not decoration. They define the evaluator's lens. 34144900 (electric vehicles) and 38554000 (electricity meters) anchor the hardware. 65300000 and 65400000 pull in distribution and alternative energy sources, which suggests the spec covers behind-the-meter or near-meter integration, not just a vehicle-side charger. 65500000 (meter reading service) signals recurring data capture, not a one-off install. 72268000 and 72319000 (software and data supply services) point to a data platform requirement, and 73000000 (R&D services) confirms this is a development competition, not a commodity buy. [S1]
For specifying engineers, the takeaway is to mirror this CPV shape in your own tender. If you only code the hardware, evaluators will struggle to score data and software responses. If you only code software, hardware bidders will self-exclude. The list is a working ontology for a metering-plus-data scope. [S1]
The cluster also tells suppliers what to expect in the evaluation matrix. Expect weighting on meter accuracy and comms, data architecture, integration with distribution-side systems, and a credible R&D plan that can survive a 20-month horizon. [S1]
Procedure, SME status, and timeline drift
The procedure is tagged as 'Other: Open Procurement for SBRI'. That is a competitive but lightly regulated route aimed at stimulating R&D supply. It usually means a single-stage application form, fixed evaluation criteria published up front, and a short interview or demonstration gate. Specifiers should publish the criteria and scoring bands in the ITT rather than reserving them for later, because SBRI suppliers calibrate their bid effort against visible weights. [S1]
SME suitability is marked 'Yes' and VCSE suitability 'No'. That is a deliberate signal: the buyer wants small specialist firms in metering, telematics, or data analytics, and is not optimising for charity or social-enterprise delivery models. If you are the buyer, your specification language should be written so a five-person startup can read it without a procurement consultant. [S1]
The two UPDATE notices before the 29 May 2020 close are a red flag for timeline discipline. The closing time of 5pm is fixed, but the dates and the ITT itself moved. Build a clarification log, and if you are a supplier, lock all assumptions in writing before the revised dates pass. [S1]
Primary notice: Contracts Finder.