Lift Maintenance at the University of Huddersfield

This tender for lift maintenance is generally well-structured, with clear basic information and a defined scope. However, it relies heavily on external documentation for crucial details like evaluation criteria and specific requirements, impacting completeness and clarity.

The tender adheres to open procedure and provides a CPV code. Deadlines are specified, though the submission deadline might be considered tight by some. No disputes are reported. The primary concern is the lack of specified evaluation criteria, which is a significant aspect of legal compliance in procurement.

The description of the works is reasonably clear, outlining the scope of maintenance, repair, and inspection for various lift types. However, the reliance on 'tender documentation for further information' for many specific requirements (exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical, financial) reduces overall clarity within the provided text.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and contract start date. However, the absence of content within the tender documents and the referral to external portals for detailed requirements means crucial information is not fully presented here, impacting completeness.

The tender is an open procedure, promoting broad participation. The estimated value is disclosed. The use of an e-sourcing portal is standard. There are no immediately apparent requirements tailored to specific companies, suggesting a good level of fairness. The main concern is the lack of transparency regarding evaluation criteria.

The tender utilizes an e-submission portal, which is practical. A contract start date and duration are provided. However, the lack of explicit financing information and the reliance on external links for full documentation can be a minor inconvenience.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided are logical and consistent with a typical procurement timeline.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria.