Diagnostics and repair of electrical systems for fire engine pumps (for three years)

This tender for fire engine pump system repair demonstrates good clarity and data consistency with a reasonable timeline and objective evaluation criteria, but raises concerns regarding document accessibility and the absence of sustainability considerations.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, uses an appropriate CPV code, and has a reasonable submission deadline (28 days). There are no reported disputes. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a significant concern for transparency and equal treatment, which are fundamental legal principles in public procurement.

The tender's title and description are clear. Performance conditions are clearly referenced to the technical specification and contract draft. AI-extracted requirements outline the necessary categories, and the document summaries indicate that detailed exclusion, selection, technical, financial, and evaluation criteria (lowest price) are specified within the tender documents.

All essential basic information, financial details, timeline, and classification data are provided. Three documents are listed and summarized, indicating that the necessary content exists. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag suggests that while the content is present, its accessibility to all potential bidders might be hindered, impacting practical completeness.

The estimated value is disclosed, the submission deadline is reasonable, and the evaluation criterion (lowest price) is objective and transparent. E-procurement is indicated, promoting equal access. There is no evidence suggesting requirements are tailored to a specific company. The primary concern for fairness is the 'Restricted document access', which could create an uneven playing field.

Electronic submission is supported, the contract duration is clearly specified, and financing information (estimated value) is available. The main practical drawback is the 'Restricted document access' and the lack of direct document URLs, which could make it less straightforward for bidders to quickly access and review the full tender documentation.

Key fields are consistently populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. While some automated flags contradict explicit tender characteristics (e.g., e-submission vs. 'No e-submission'), the core tender data and document summaries appear internally consistent.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity for integrating broader public value considerations.