Changing Places Facilities

This tender for Changing Places facilities shows good clarity and fairness, but lacks detailed documentation and specific criteria, impacting completeness and practicality.

The tender adheres to general regulatory compliance and includes a proper CPV code. Deadlines appear reasonable given the planning status. No explicit disputes are noted. The 'Type' and 'Procedure' are marked as 'None', which is unusual and could indicate an incomplete classification. However, the overall legal framework seems adequately represented for a planning stage notice.

The description of the project is clear, outlining the need for accessible Changing Places facilities and associated refurbishments. Requirements are generally documented within the description, focusing on the outcome of safe and dignified access. However, specific evaluation criteria are missing, which would enhance clarity.

Basic information such as title, organization, estimated value, and duration is present. The CPV code is provided, and a submission deadline is specified. However, crucial tender documents lack content, and there are no explicit financial or submission requirements detailed, leading to a moderate completeness score.

The tender appears fair, with an disclosed estimated value and a reasonable deadline relative to the planning status. Objective criteria for assessment are not explicitly stated but the project's aims are clearly defined. There is no indication of requirements tailored to specific companies, promoting a level playing field. E-procurement is not explicitly mentioned as a requirement or feature.

The contract duration and start date are provided. However, the lack of explicit e-submission details and accessible document content hinders practicality. Financing information is not specified. The absence of specific submission requirements makes the practical steps for bidders unclear.

Key fields such as title, organization, value, and dates are populated. The status is 'planning', which is consistent with the presence of a submission deadline but no contract award yet. There are no stated disputes or suspensions. The logical flow from planning to submission seems sound.

The tender does not explicitly mention green procurement, social aspects, innovation, or EU funding, leading to a lower score in this category. While the project itself has social benefits regarding accessibility, these are not framed as formal sustainability requirements.