Campus Arbejdsprogram (CWP)

This tender for Campus Works Programme by Sheffield Hallam University is in the planning stage, outlining a framework arrangement for minor works and maintenance. While it provides essential information and a substantial estimated value, critical details regarding evaluation criteria and document content are missing, impacting clarity and completeness.

The tender appears to comply with general procurement principles, including a clear procedure type and CPV code. The estimated value is substantial and classified as 'No'. The deadline is noted as potentially short, but without further context on the complexity of the required documents, it's difficult to definitively flag as non-compliant. No disputes are reported.

The description of the framework arrangement and the scope of works is generally clear. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria and the lack of content in the tender documents significantly hinder a comprehensive understanding of how bids will be assessed.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are present. However, the crucial absence of detailed tender documents, including mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission requirements, leaves significant gaps. The 'planning' status also implies that not all details are finalized.

The tender is an 'Open' procedure, suggesting broad access. The estimated value is disclosed, and the criteria for project selection within the framework are outlined. The absence of specific company tailoring is noted. However, the lack of detailed documentation and evaluation criteria could indirectly affect fairness by making it harder for all potential bidders to prepare a competitive submission.

The tender is in the 'planning' stage, and the absence of e-submission details and a clear contract start date (though a start date is provided, its finality is implied by the planning status) impacts practicality. The availability of document URLs is not confirmed, and financing information is not explicitly detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are populated. The dates provided are logical within the context of a planning stage. No suspensions or disputes are indicated.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the provided tender information. The tender is also not indicated as EU funded, which often comes with sustainability requirements.