Want tender expert help? See our tender preparation service
Tenders

Modernization of the running track at Zygmunt Krasiński High School No. 1 in Ciechanów within the framework of the Mazovian Instrument for Sports Infrastructure Support "Mazovia for Sport" – 2025 edition

Closed

Submission Deadline Has Passed

This tender's submission deadline has passed and is no longer accepting applications. The information below is kept for reference purposes.

Browse Active Tenders
Deadline
Expired
March 26, 2026
Contract Details
Category
Construction
Reference
2026/BZP 00147019/01
Value
Not disclosed
Location
Mazowiecki regionalny, Poland
Published
August 26, 2026
CPV Code
Project Timeline

Tender Published

March 10, 2026

Deadline for Questions

March 19, 2026

Submission Deadline

March 26, 2026

Win ProbabilityPRO
🔒
Upgrade to Professional
See your estimated win probability based on historical data.
Upgrade to Professional →
Sector InsightsPRO
🔒
Unlock Sector Insights
See average winning prices, competition levels, and market trends.
Upgrade to Professional →
Budget
Not disclosed
Duration
4 months
Location
Mazowiecki regionalny
Type
Construction
75
Quality Score/100
Good
Market Benchmark
Avg. Winning Price
€12,641,706
Avg. Bids
0.1
Competition
Low
SME Winners
86%
133,693 tenders analyzed

Original Tender Description

Modernization of the running track at Zygmunt Krasiński High School No. 1 in Ciechanów within the framework of the Mazovian Instrument for Sports Infrastructure Support "Mazovia for Sport" – 2025 edition

Run Risk Analysis

Identify potential risks, inconsistencies, and red flags across all tender documents. Get a detailed risk report with severity levels and mitigation recommendations.

Login

Win Strategy

AI-powered analysis of this tender's requirements, opportunities, and challenges. Get strategic insights to maximize your win probability.

65%
Estimated Win ProbabilityModerate Fit

This tender for running track modernization at a high school in Ciechanów presents a solid opportunity for experienced construction firms. While specific evaluation criteria are not fully detailed, the emphasis on price and warranty period suggests a need for cost-efficiency and long-term reliability. Bidders should focus on demonstrating technical competence and offering a competitive warranty to secure this contract.

Key Winning Messages

Delivering a high-quality, durable running track modernization on time and within budget.

Providing exceptional long-term value through a superior warranty offering.

Ensuring a seamless and professional execution of the project, minimizing disruption.

Key Opportunities
The lack of detailed evaluation criteria beyond price and warranty suggests a strong emphasis on these two factors, allowing bidders to differentiate through competitive pricing and extended warranty offers.
The project is part of a regional sports infrastructure support program ('Mazowsze dla sportu'), indicating potential for positive public relations and future opportunities within the region.
The relatively short duration of 4 months allows for efficient project planning and execution, appealing to bidders with strong resource management.
Key Challenges
The absence of detailed technical specifications and evaluation criteria makes it difficult to precisely tailor the bid and understand the full scope of the contracting authority's expectations.

Proactively seek clarification from the contracting authority regarding technical requirements and evaluation methodology. Conduct a thorough site visit to gain a comprehensive understanding of the existing conditions and potential challenges.

The estimated value is not disclosed, making it harder to gauge the expected budget and competitive landscape.

Research similar past projects in the region to estimate a reasonable price range. Analyze competitor capabilities based on their typical project sizes and market presence.

The tender explicitly states 'No Green Procurement' and 'No Social Aspects', limiting opportunities for differentiation in these areas.

Focus on excelling in the defined evaluation criteria (price and warranty). While not explicitly required, consider subtly highlighting any inherent sustainability in materials or processes if it doesn't increase cost, or any community benefits derived from the project's completion (e.g., improved facilities for students).

Ideal Bidder Profile
An experienced construction company with a proven track record in sports facility construction and renovation, particularly in Poland. The ideal bidder possesses strong project management capabilities, efficient cost control, and the ability to offer a competitive warranty period. Familiarity with public procurement procedures in Poland is essential.
Key Requirements
Demonstrated technical capability in construction, specifically for sports facilities.
Ability to provide a competitive warranty period.
Compliance with all mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements.
Submission of a complete and accurate bid according to specified requirements.
Understanding and adherence to the draft contract terms.
Key Discriminators
A significantly longer or more comprehensive warranty period than competitors.
A highly competitive price that still allows for quality and profit.
Demonstrated expertise in similar school sports facility projects with positive testimonials.
A clear and concise project execution plan that instills confidence in timely completion.
Social Value Opportunities
While not a mandatory requirement, consider offering a small, value-added social benefit such as a brief training session for school staff on track maintenance or a donation of sports equipment to the school, if feasible and cost-effective. This can create goodwill without significant cost.
Bid Focus Areas
PriceHigh (implied)

Develop a highly competitive and cost-effective pricing strategy. Conduct thorough cost analysis to identify areas for efficiency without compromising quality. Consider a slightly lower profit margin if the strategic value of the contract is high.

Warranty PeriodHigh (implied)

Offer an extended warranty period that exceeds standard industry practice. Clearly articulate the benefits of this extended warranty to the contracting authority, emphasizing long-term cost savings and reduced risk.

Technical CapabilityMedium (implied)

Provide clear evidence of past successful projects of similar scope and complexity. Highlight the qualifications and experience of the project team, including engineers and site managers.

Recommendations6
Thoroughly Analyze and Address All Mandatory Exclusion Grounds
CriticalLow effort

Scrutinize Section II, Subsection 8 of the SWZ for all mandatory exclusion grounds and ensure the bidder and any subcontractors fully comply. Failure to meet these is an automatic disqualification.

Prevents disqualification.
Maximize Price Competitiveness and Warranty Offering
CriticalHigh effort

Given the implied weighting, develop a lean cost structure to offer a highly competitive price. Simultaneously, aim to significantly extend the warranty period beyond typical offerings, clearly articulating its value proposition.

Directly addresses key evaluation criteria, increasing win probability.
Develop a Detailed and Realistic Project Execution Plan
HighMed effort

Even without explicit technical evaluation criteria, a well-structured plan demonstrating understanding of the project lifecycle, timelines, resource allocation, and risk management will build confidence.

Builds trust and demonstrates competence beyond just price.
Conduct a Site Visit and Seek Clarifications
HighMed effort

Visit the site at I Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Zygmunta Krasińskiego in Ciechanów to understand site conditions. Submit formal requests for clarification on any ambiguities in the SWZ or draft contract.

Reduces risk of misinterpretation and improves bid accuracy.
Propose a Value-Added Community Benefit (Optional)
MediumLow effort

Although not required, consider a small, cost-effective initiative like a brief track maintenance workshop for school personnel or a small donation of sports equipment. This can create positive sentiment.

Enhances bidder reputation and can be a subtle differentiator.
Carefully Review and Understand the Draft Contract
MediumMed effort

Thoroughly analyze the '06_wzor_umowy_10.03.2026.pdf' to identify any onerous clauses or potential risks. Ensure your bid is structured to align with these contractual obligations.

Prevents future contractual disputes and financial risks.
Competitive Positioning
Position the bid as offering the best long-term value through a combination of competitive pricing and an industry-leading warranty, ensuring the school receives a durable and reliable sports facility for years to come.

Competitors

Upgrade to see which companies are likely to bid on this tender, based on historical procurement data.

Login

Requirements & Qualifications

5 requirements across 5 categories

Submission (1)
Mandatory (1)
Compliance (1)
Technical (1)
Financial (1)
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS1
--No information in the provided text.
MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS1
--No information in the provided text.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS1
--No information in the provided text.
TECHNICAL CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS1
--No information in the provided text.
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS1
--No information in the provided text.

Requirements Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Documents

7 documents available with AI summaries

Notice PDFPDF
08de7e81-19a9-49bb-056e-e50001ac5bd4.pdf

This document contains a tender notice for the modernization of a running track at a high school in Ciechanów, Poland, with bids evaluated based on price and warranty period.

02_SWZ_10.03.2026.pdfPDF
02_SWZ_10.03.2026.pdf

No summary available for this document.

03_Zalaczniki_do_SWZ_w_wersji_edytowalnej_10.03.2026.docxDOC
03_Zalaczniki_do_SWZ_w_wersji_edytowalnej_10....

No summary available for this document.

04_Klauzula_informacyjna_RODO_10.03.2026.pdfPDF
04_Klauzula_informacyjna_RODO_10.03.2026.pdf

No summary available for this document.

05_PFU_10.03.2026.zipZIP
05_PFU_10.03.2026.zip

No summary available for this document.

06_wzor_umowy_10.03.2026.pdfPDF
06_wzor_umowy_10.03.2026.pdf

This document contains a draft contract for the modernization of a running track at a high school, outlining the scope of work, definitions, and responsibilities of the parties involved.

Zmiana ogłoszenia / Notice ChangePDF
notice_change_08de8a5d-f4aa-9758-056e-e50001a...

No summary available for this document.

Documents Preview

Sign up to view document summaries and analysis

75
Good

Tender Quality Score

This tender for the modernization of a running track is generally well-structured, with clear documentation and a reasonable process. However, the lack of disclosed financial value and specific evaluation criteria are notable concerns.

Score Breakdown

Legal Compliance75/100

The tender adheres to general legal compliance by providing a clear procedure, CPV code, and organizational details. The submission deadline is provided, and the contract duration is specified. No disputes are indicated. The primary concern is the absence of a 'reveal date' which is a minor procedural element.

Missing reveal date
Clarity80/100

The description of the project is clear, and the title is specific. The tender notice summary indicates that bids will be evaluated based on price and warranty period, although this is not explicitly detailed in the main tender information. The availability of multiple documents suggests a structured approach to providing information.

Missing evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100

Most basic information is present, including the title, organization, CPV code, and submission deadline. The contract duration is also specified. A significant number of tender documents are available, indicating a good level of detail. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which impacts overall completeness.

Estimated Value: Not disclosed
Fairness85/100

The tender is characterized as E-Procurement, which promotes fairness. The availability of multiple documents, including a contract draft, suggests transparency. There are no apparent requirements tailored to specific companies. The lack of disclosed value is a minor detractor from maximum fairness.

Practicality65/100

The tender specifies E-Procurement, which is a positive for practical submission. However, the 'Issues' section flags 'No e-submission', which is contradictory and needs clarification. The contract start date is not explicitly mentioned, and financing information is absent. The contract duration is provided.

No e-submission (flagged in issues, contradicts E-Procurement characteristic)
Data Consistency90/100

Key fields such as title, reference number, organization, deadline, and CPV code are populated. The dates provided are logical, and there are no indications of suspension or disputes. The contract duration is consistent with the project type.

Sustainability50/100

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, innovation, or EU funding. This indicates a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.

Not green procurement
No social criteria

Strengths

Clear project title and description
Comprehensive set of tender documents available
E-Procurement characteristic indicated
Well-defined CPV code and location

Concerns

Estimated value not disclosed
Evaluation criteria not explicitly specified
Potential contradiction regarding e-submission

Recommendations

1. Disclose the estimated financial value of the tender.
2. Clearly specify the evaluation criteria for bid assessment.
3. Clarify the e-submission process.

AI Scoring Preview

Sign up to view complete requirements and analysis

Complete quality score analysis
Detailed sub-score breakdown
Strengths & concerns insights
Strategic recommendations

No credit card required • Setup in 2 minutes

Add to Pipeline