BMS Servicing

This tender for BMS servicing demonstrates good clarity on technical requirements and evaluation criteria but suffers from significant completeness and fairness issues due to failed document downloads and data inconsistencies. The highly specific technical requirements and lack of e-submission also present practical challenges.

The procedure type and CPV codes are clearly defined and appropriate. There are no reported disputes. However, the tender lacks explicit mention of mandatory exclusion grounds and a clear reveal date, which are important for full legal compliance and transparency.

The description of the required services and the AI-extracted technical capability requirements are clear and unambiguous. Evaluation criteria (60% price / 40% quality) are specified. However, the mention of the tender being 'Divided into Parts' lacks further clarification, and explicit performance conditions are not detailed in the provided summaries.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, and CPV code is present. While deadlines, value, and duration are specified, there are significant discrepancies in the estimated value and contract duration across different tender sections. Crucially, two out of five tender documents failed to download, indicating critical missing information. Mandatory exclusion grounds and specific financial stability requirements are also noted as absent.

The lack of access to all tender documents due to download failures significantly compromises fairness. The requirement for 'competence and experience in servicing Priva BMS systems' and 'UK-based contractor' is highly specific and, while potentially justifiable for existing infrastructure, could limit competition. The absence of electronic submission also creates an unequal playing field for potential bidders.

The tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The failure of two tender documents to download also presents practical difficulties for bidders in accessing complete information. While the contract start date is known, the overall practical accessibility is hindered.

There are critical inconsistencies in the tender data, specifically regarding the estimated value (stated as 48,000.00 EUR in basic info but £40,000 in document summaries) and contract duration (24 months in basic info but 2-4 years in summaries). The 'Liable Person' field is also empty. These discrepancies can cause confusion and undermine trust.

The tender does not include any explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.