Accommodation and Support for Living a Good Life (Supported Housing/Supported Living)

This tender for supported housing and living services is well-structured with a clear description and adequate financial information. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and details on submission requirements, impacting its overall completeness and practicality.

The tender appears to be in the planning stage, with a reasonable submission deadline relative to the contract start date. The CPV code is appropriate for the services described. No disputes are reported. The procedure type is not specified, which is a minor omission at this planning stage.

The description of the services is clear, outlining the need for high-quality, person-centred support for adults with specific needs. The eligibility and technical capability requirements are broadly stated but understandable. The absence of specific evaluation criteria is a notable lack of clarity.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are present. However, the lack of specific financial requirements, submission requirements, and detailed document content (only 4 documents attached with no summaries) reduces its completeness.

The tender is divided into parts, which can promote competition. The estimated value is disclosed, and the eligibility criteria are general, suggesting a fair approach. The lack of specific tailored requirements to particular companies is positive. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria could lead to perceived unfairness in the selection process.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the lack of information regarding e-submission, document URLs, and financing details limits its practicality for potential bidders. The deadline, while reasonable in context, might be tight if detailed documentation is not readily available.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated logically. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. The dates provided are consistent with a planning phase.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, innovation, or EU funding in the provided information. This indicates a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.