The Portal Is Not Neutral
Most guidance on Carbon Reduction Plans focuses on content: what to include, how to calculate emissions, what targets to set. Comparatively little attention is paid to the submission mechanics. That is a gap worth closing, because the portal you submit through shapes how your CRP is received before an evaluator reads a single line.
The three e-procurement platforms that handle the majority of UK public sector tenders are Jaggaer (used across many central government departments and arm-length bodies), Bravo Solutions operating as Delta eSourcing (widely used by local authorities, NHS trusts, and devolved bodies), and Atamis (increasingly adopted by NHS commissioning organisations and some local councils). Each handles CRP submissions differently. Each has its own field types, file size limits, and document handling behaviour. Understanding these differences saves time and reduces risk.
Jaggaer: Central Government Default Platform
Jaggaer is the platform behind several major central government procurement portals, including the Find a Tender Service supplier interface used by departments operating under the Procurement Act 2023. It is also the engine behind a number of departmental procurement systems that carry department-specific branding.
In Jaggaer-based tenders, the CRP requirement is typically surfaced in one of two ways. Some procurements present it as a document upload field within the supplier questionnaire or selection questionnaire section, where suppliers attach a PDF of their published CRP. Others present it as a URL field, asking suppliers to provide the web address where their CRP is publicly accessible. A smaller number use a hybrid approach: a URL field plus an option to upload a document as a fallback.
The URL approach reflects the PPN 006 requirement that Carbon Reduction Plans be published on the supplier website. If a portal asks for a URL, it is because the buyer intends to verify that the document is genuinely public-facing and not simply produced for the tender. Submitting a URL that returns a 404 error, points to a document that requires a login, or links to a generic sustainability page rather than the CRP itself is a common and entirely avoidable mistake.
When evaluators work through Jaggaer submissions, they typically see the supplier response alongside a marking guide. For pass/fail CRP assessments, the evaluator is checking that the submitted document or linked document meets the PPN 006 structural requirements. In Jaggaer, it is common for evaluators to have a scoring matrix open in a separate window while reviewing the CRP. The document needs to be easy to navigate. A clearly structured PDF with visible section headings for baseline emissions, targets, and reduction actions makes the evaluator job straightforward. An unstructured document forces the evaluator to search, which creates an unfavourable impression.
A common mistake on Jaggaer portals is submitting a document version that differs from the one published on the company website. Some suppliers maintain an internal version and a published version and accidentally submit the wrong one. Because Jaggaer logs the submission timestamp, and because evaluators sometimes check the published URL after reviewing the upload, discrepancies between the two can trigger a clarification request.
Delta eSourcing (Bravo Solutions): Local Authority and NHS Use
Delta eSourcing, built on the Bravo Solutions platform, is the most widely used e-procurement system among English local authorities and is also common in NHS procurement outside the central commissioning infrastructure. It operates under several buyer-branded interfaces, but the underlying submission mechanics are broadly consistent.
In Delta eSourcing, CRP requirements are most commonly presented within the selection questionnaire (SQ) as a document upload field. The platform typically accepts PDF, Word, and occasionally Excel formats. File size limits in Delta eSourcing environments are generally lower than those in Jaggaer, often in the range of 5 to 10 megabytes per file. Suppliers who maintain elaborate CRP documents with embedded graphics or photographic content occasionally find their files rejected at the upload stage.
Delta eSourcing evaluators see submissions in a side-by-side view that allows them to compare multiple supplier responses to the same question. This layout has a practical implication: the opening section of your CRP matters more than you might expect. In a side-by-side view, an evaluator scanning multiple responses quickly forms an impression based on structure and professionalism before reading for content. A CRP that opens with a clear statement of the company commitment, its baseline year, its net zero target date, and its most significant reduction actions will create a better first impression than one that opens with several paragraphs of background context.
A specific issue with Delta eSourcing submissions is that some buyers configure the platform to prevent document downloads, instead rendering uploaded files in an in-browser viewer. PDF documents that contain unusual fonts, complex vector graphics, or interactive elements sometimes render poorly in these viewers. A clean, text-forward PDF produced from a standard document template is more reliable than one exported from a design tool.
The most common mistake on Delta eSourcing portals is submitting a document that meets the content requirements but has not been converted to PDF. Word documents submitted via Delta eSourcing can display formatting inconsistencies depending on the evaluator system. Always submit a PDF unless the portal explicitly requires another format.
Atamis: NHS and Local Government Procurement
Atamis is a procurement platform that has grown significantly in NHS adoption over the past few years and is also used by a number of local councils and housing associations. Its supplier-facing interface is generally regarded as more modern than Bravo Solutions, with a cleaner question-and-response layout.
In Atamis, the CRP requirement typically appears as a question within a supplier selection or pre-qualification stage. The platform commonly uses a combination field: a text box for a brief written response confirming compliance, alongside a document upload field. Some Atamis configurations ask only for a URL. The specific configuration depends on the buying organisation and how they have set up their questionnaire template.
One feature of Atamis that catches suppliers out is the character or word limit on text response fields. If a buyer has configured a text field with a limit and you are asked to summarise your CRP or confirm your compliance approach, that response needs to be concise and complete within the allotted space. Suppliers sometimes write lengthy narrative responses that get truncated, with the truncation not visible until the evaluation stage.
Atamis evaluators typically review supplier responses through a structured scoring interface. For mandatory pass/fail requirements such as CRP compliance, the evaluator marks the response as compliant or non-compliant with reference to the defined criteria. The platform logs the evaluator decision and the basis for it. If a CRP is marked non-compliant, it is usually because one of the PPN 006 structural requirements is visibly absent rather than because of a document formatting issue.
The most common Atamis-specific mistake is failing to complete both elements of a combination question. If a question asks for both a text response and a document upload, leaving either field blank typically registers as an incomplete response. Some Atamis configurations will flag this at the submission stage. Others will allow submission of an incomplete response, leaving it to the evaluator to mark it accordingly.
What Evaluators Are Actually Looking For
Across all three platforms, the evaluator core task for a PPN 006 CRP check is consistent. They are confirming that five elements are present: a commitment to achieve net zero by 2050, a baseline year and emissions figure (covering at least Scope 1 and 2), at least one interim reduction target, a set of specific reduction actions, and evidence that the document has been reviewed in the last twelve months.
Evaluators are not conducting a carbon audit. They are not verifying the accuracy of your emissions calculations. They are checking that the document structure is present and plausible. A baseline figure that looks implausibly low may prompt a note, but it will not automatically fail the submission. A document that is missing a baseline figure entirely will fail.
The secondary layer of evaluation, beyond the structural pass/fail, is credibility. Evaluators with procurement experience can distinguish between a CRP produced with care and one assembled quickly to satisfy a requirement. Specific, time-bound reduction actions, a realistic interim target with a defined methodology, and a clear explanation of how Scope 3 was approached all contribute to a credible document. Vague commitments to "reduce our carbon footprint over time" do not.
Pre-Submission Checklist for Any Portal
Before submitting your Carbon Reduction Plan via any procurement portal, work through the following checklist:
- Document is dated within the last twelve months. An undated CRP or one with a date older than one year will be flagged. Check the document date and the date of your most recent emissions data.
- Your company legal name on the CRP matches your company name on the tender submission. Trading names and registered names sometimes differ. Use the name that matches your Companies House registration unless the buyer has specified otherwise.
- The CRP is published on your website and the URL is live. Test the URL from a private browser window to confirm it resolves without login. If the portal asks for a URL, this is the URL to submit.
- The document is in PDF format. Convert from Word or your CRP tool before uploading. Check that the PDF renders correctly, particularly if your document includes tables or graphs.
- File size is within the portal limit. If uncertain, keep the file under 5MB. Compress embedded images if needed.
- The five PPN 006 structural elements are present. Net zero 2050 commitment, baseline emissions, interim target, reduction actions, and a review date.
- Scope 3 is addressed. At minimum, your major categories should appear with a figure or a documented justification for exclusion.
- No references to Crown Commercial Service without updating to Government Commercial Authority where appropriate.
- If the portal has a text response field alongside the document upload, complete both. Do not leave either blank.
- Review the question wording one final time before submitting. Some buyers ask for the CRP as published. Others ask for a summary or a compliance statement. Submitting the right thing in the right field is a basic check worth making.
CarbonVerified produces Carbon Reduction Plans in a PDF format optimised for portal submission. The document structure maps directly to the PPN 006 evaluation criteria, with clearly labelled sections for baseline emissions, targets, and reduction actions. The published URL provided by CarbonVerified is permanent and publicly accessible, satisfying the URL field requirement on any portal. If you are preparing for a tender submission and need to confirm your CRP is portal-ready, the compliance check in your CarbonVerified account will walk you through each of the points above.
