Portadown Oversvømmelseshåndteringsordning Fase 1

This tender outlines a complex multi-stage procurement for a significant flood alleviation scheme, demonstrating good clarity in process description but suffering from critical issues such as missing detailed evaluation criteria, lack of e-submission, and an irrelevant attached document.

The tender clearly defines the restricted procedure and competitive flexible approach, with an appropriate CPV code. The submission deadline for the Participation Stage is exceptionally generous, ensuring ample preparation time. However, the absence of detailed evaluation criteria and a missing reveal date are minor transparency concerns.

The description of the multi-stage process, including shortlisting, tie-breaking rules, and the framework agreement for subsequent phases, is very clear and unambiguous. Requirements are well-categorized. The primary deficiency is the lack of specific, detailed evaluation criteria and their weightings for the Participation Stage and Phase 1.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and location are well-provided. However, the inclusion of an entirely irrelevant document (Lichfield District Council tender) is a significant error in the tender package. Furthermore, detailed evaluation criteria are not fully defined.

The tender value is disclosed, and the deadline for the Participation Stage is very reasonable, promoting fair preparation. Requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company. Nevertheless, the absence of detailed evaluation criteria reduces transparency and objectivity, and the lack of e-submission creates a barrier to equal access for potential bidders.

The absence of electronic submission support is a major practical drawback in modern procurement. The contract start date being identical to the submission deadline is illogical and creates ambiguity, hindering practical planning. While documents are available, a direct URL is not explicitly provided in the summary.

Most key fields are populated, and no disputes are reported. However, the 'Liable Person' field is empty, and codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure' are missing. Critically, the contract start date is identical to the submission deadline, which is illogical. The presence of an irrelevant document also indicates a significant inconsistency in the overall tender data package.

The tender explicitly mentions 'social value' as a criterion for Phases 2 and 3, which is a positive inclusion of social aspects. However, there is no explicit focus on green procurement or innovation in the provided information for the initial stages, and it is not EU funded.