The Omega Centre Special Education Needs School Refurbishment & Extension

This tender for the Omega Centre Special Education Needs School Refurbishment & Extension is generally well-structured with clear objectives and a detailed timeline. However, it lacks explicit evaluation criteria and information on sustainability aspects.

The tender adheres to standard procurement practices with a clear two-stage procedure and defined timelines. The CPV code is provided, and the estimated value is disclosed. There are no immediate indications of disputes or regulatory non-compliance. The deadlines, while potentially tight for some, are within a reasonable range for a competitive flexible procedure.

The description of the project is clear, outlining the scope of works, the target beneficiaries, and the location. The requirements for suppliers are detailed, including technical capabilities and the need to act as Principal Contractor. The two-stage process is well-defined. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria for both stages is a significant omission.

Most basic information is present, including the title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. The detailed schedule provides a clear roadmap. However, the tender documents themselves are not accessible or summarized, which impacts the overall completeness of the information provided to potential bidders.

The tender is open to 'suitably qualified suppliers' and uses a competitive flexible procedure, indicating a fair process. The estimated value is disclosed, and the two-stage process aims to shortlist qualified bidders. There are no obvious requirements tailored to specific companies. The use of e-procurement is implied by the mention of 'Intend' for publishing notices and documents.

The tender specifies a two-stage submission process with clear deadlines for each stage. The contract start date is provided, and the duration is defined. However, the lack of explicit information regarding e-submission mechanisms and the URL for accessing tender documents limits practicality. Financing information is not detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and timelines are consistently populated. The dates provided in the schedule are logical and follow a sequential order. There are no indications of suspension or disputes. The contract start date and completion date align with the contract duration.

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