University of St Andrews public-sector contracts

Recent award timeline

Research University of St Andrews in UK public procurement

The retained evidence covers 1 distinct procurement record and 1 named buyer: JNCC SUPPORT CO. The latest retained publication is “SMRU Seal Flipper Feasibility Study”, published 10 November 2026.

Use the buyer and contract title together when researching comparable requirements. Open each official release to check the tender description, award status and lot allocation before treating this supplier as a comparable provider. This is a bounded source sample, not a complete contract portfolio.

What to check for this supplier

• For “SMRU Seal Flipper Feasibility Study”, establish which deliverables JNCC SUPPORT CO described and verify the award status and scope.
• Check whether the named supplier received a direct contract or a framework position; appointment alone does not establish guaranteed revenue.
• Compare the published requirements with your own capability profile before pursuing a similar opportunity.

Published scope and award details

The following evidence belongs to “SMRU Seal Flipper Feasibility Study”, published by JNCC SUPPORT CO. It is a historical source snapshot reviewed on 10 November 2026, not a live availability check.

Procurement procedure

Below threshold - without competition

Status on the retained award

active — a source status, not proof of an open tender

Award identifier

1

Release identifier

106662-2026

Period recorded on this award

Not stated on this retained award; check the contract details and later releases.

Suppliers named on this award

1

Notice scope excerpt

Project Aims The aim of this commission is to undertake a strategic feasibility study assessing the suitability of existing seal telemetry and electronic flipper-tag technologies for supporting future seal monitoring, assessment, and reporting requirements within the UK. The study will review current evidence, technologies, deployment approaches and animal welfare considerations, identify evidence gaps and technical limitations, and evaluate opportunities for future telemetry development. The commission will provide an evidence-based roadmap to support future investment decisions relating to seal telemetry research and technology development. 3. Project Background The Special Committee on Seals (SCOS) has identified robust estimation of UK seal population size and demographic processes as a high research priority. Current monitoring and assessment approaches rely on telemetry-based estimates of haul-out behaviour to support population estimation, particularly for harbour seals. However, existing telemetry evidence remains limited, and uncertainties persist regarding variation in haul-out behaviour, movement ecology, survival, connectivity and demographic parameters. At the same time, significant technological developments have occurred in wildlife telemetry and biologging systems. Current technologies vary in deployment duration, data return, cost, attachment methodology and animal welfare implications. Opportunities may exist to develop smaller, lighter and longer-lasting devices capable of collecting higher-quality data while reducing impacts on study animals. There is also increasing interest in deployment approaches suitable for age classes that are currently difficult to study, including grey seal pups. This study will support strategic planning across SCOS, JNCC, Defra, NatureScot, Natural England, Natural Resources Wales and DAERA by assessing the current state of knowledge and identifying future telemetry development priorities. The outputs will contribute to future monitoring requirements supporting SCOS advice, UK Marine Strategy (UKMS) assessment and OSPAR reporting obligations. 4. Project Objectives To meet the overall aims of this project (Section 2), the objectives are: • Review existing evidence from previous seal telemetry and electronic flipper-tag deployments. • Assess the implications of telemetry-derived information for seal population estimation, monitoring and survey design. • Review currently available telemetry technologies, deployment methods and associated animal welfare considerations. • Evaluate opportunities for future telemetry development, including smaller, lighter and longer-lasting devices. • Assess feasibility of telemetry deployment across currently underrepresented demographic groups, including grey seal pups. • Undertake expert engagement with researchers, practitioners and technology developers. • Identify evidence gaps, technical risks, development requirements and indicative costs. • Produce a prioritised roadmap for future telemetry research and technology development. 5. Project Objectives: Detailed Tasks The successful contractor will undertake the following tasks: Task 1. Evidence Review Undertake a review of existing evidence relating to seal telemetry and electronic flipper-tag deployments, including published and grey literature where appropriate. Assess the contribution of telemetry-derived information to seal population estimation, haul-out correction factors, movement ecology, and demographic analyses. Task 2. Technology Review Review currently available seal telemetry and biologging technologies, including attachment methods, transmission systems, battery technologies, data products and deployment longevity. Assess relative advantages, limitations, costs and operational considerations. Task 3. Animal Welfare Assessment Review animal welfare considerations associated with existing telemetry deployment approaches, including attachment methods, tag retention, behavioural impacts

The excerpt describes the procurement as a whole. It does not establish this supplier’s individual deliverables or lot allocation. This excerpt may be truncated. Source wording about applications or deadlines is historical and must not be read as an invitation to bid now.

Read the complete official release and lot allocation ↗

Contracts explicitly linked to this award

These contract records reference award 1 in the same retained release. They are shown separately from the award fields. Values are not annual revenue and may cover several suppliers; no total or per-supplier allocation is inferred.

Procurement route and comparison checks

The retained procedure is “Below threshold - without competition”. To compare a future bid with this award, locate the original notice and evaluation documents from JNCC SUPPORT CO; the award alone does not establish the route for a future purchase.

• Buyer match: confirm that requirements from JNCC SUPPORT CO are comparable to the buyer, location and service scale you intend to target.
• Delivery scope: use the excerpt above to identify deliverables, exclusions and technical constraints. Verify each against the complete documents before claiming a capability match.
• Timing: check the award-specific period above against later contract notices. A missing date is unknown; it is not a renewal signal.

This profile is an independent research aid from Team J8VEST. It is not an endorsement by, or an affiliation with, the named supplier or buyer. The sample is not the supplier’s complete contract portfolio.

Questions for a bid or market team

• Which published requirements and lots led to University of St Andrews being named?
• What evidence would a supplier need for comparable UK public procurement?
• Do later notices change the term, value, scope or status of these awards?

Answer these questions from the complete procurement pack and later notices. Store the source URL, publication date and exact field behind every conclusion. A supplier name in an award does not prove present capacity, customer satisfaction, future demand or revenue attributable to that supplier.

How to interpret this record

The timeline is evidence of published procurement history, not a lead score. Values can describe a lot, ceiling, estimate or whole contract and must not automatically be treated as annual supplier revenue. Framework appointment does not guarantee call-off work.

Check the original tender, lot structure, duration, modifications and termination notices. Compare several awards before calling a pattern repeatable, and label every inference separately from source facts.

Related supplier workflow

Compare related supplier evidence

These profiles share the UK public procurement research category. Similar categorisation does not establish direct competition or equivalent capabilities.