Site Surveying and Provision of Electronic Drawings and Plans for Leisure Centres in West Oxfordshire

This tender provides a clear project description and essential details but suffers from significant gaps in detailed requirements, limited market access, and a lack of modern procurement practices.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type as 'Below threshold - open competition' and assigns a relevant CPV code. Mandatory exclusion grounds are mentioned, indicating adherence to basic legal frameworks. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The 21-day submission period is reasonable for a below-threshold tender. However, the missing 'reveal date' is a minor transparency oversight.

The project description and scope of services are clear and unambiguous. High-level evaluation weights (40% quality, 60% price) are specified. However, the detailed content for 'Mandatory Exclusion Grounds' is not provided, and crucially, the specific sub-criteria for evaluating the 'quality' component (40%) are missing, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed.

All basic information such as title, reference, organization, description, estimated value, duration, and deadlines are provided. Location information (NUTS code, specific sites) is also present. However, the tender is incomplete due to the lack of detailed quality evaluation criteria and the specific content for mandatory exclusion grounds. Furthermore, one of the four listed tender documents failed to download, impacting overall completeness for potential bidders.

Fairness is significantly impacted by several factors. The requirement for a 'UK-based supplier' restricts competition, even if permissible for a below-threshold national tender, limiting access for other qualified European suppliers. The absence of electronic submission creates barriers to equal access. The lack of detailed quality evaluation criteria makes the assessment of the 'quality' component potentially subjective and less transparent. The failure to access one tender document also compromises full document access.

The tender provides essential practical information such as contract start date and duration. However, the lack of electronic submission is a major practical drawback in modern procurement, increasing administrative burden for bidders. The failure to download one of the tender documents also presents a practical hurdle for interested parties.

Most key fields are populated and consistent. Dates are logical, with the submission deadline preceding the contract start date. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. A minor inconsistency exists between the 'Estimated Value' stated as 30,000.00 EUR and the 'estimated value of £25,000' mentioned in document summaries, which, while likely equivalent, indicates a slight lack of precision.

The tender explicitly lacks any mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability considerations into the procurement process, which is a standard expectation in modern public tenders.