Reconfiguration/refurbishment work for 2nd floor and Toilet Block of the Raymond Edwards building

This tender for refurbishment works is generally well-structured with clear technical requirements and a disclosed estimated value. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and details on e-submission, impacting its overall practicality and fairness.

The tender appears to comply with basic legal requirements, including a clear CPV code and a defined procedure. The deadline, while potentially short, is specified. No disputes are noted. The primary concern is the absence of a reveal date, which is a minor procedural omission.

The description of the refurbishment works is detailed and specific, outlining the scope for both the 2nd floor and the toilet block. Technical requirements are clearly listed, making it easy for bidders to understand the expected deliverables.

Most basic information is present, including the title, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. However, the lack of content for the tender documents and the absence of specific financial requirements for bidders reduce its completeness.

The tender is open and the estimated value is disclosed, promoting transparency. The criteria are objective and focused on technical capability. The main drawback is the lack of explicit mention of e-submission, which could imply a less modern procurement process.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the absence of information regarding e-submission and the lack of accessible document content hinder practical application for potential bidders.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and deadlines are populated. Dates are logical, and there are no reported suspensions or disputes, indicating good data consistency.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, innovation, or EU funding, which are important considerations for modern public procurement.