Asbestos Works and Services includes surveying and analytical

This tender for asbestos works and services by the University of Edinburgh provides clear scope and lot division but suffers from a critical lack of specified evaluation criteria and detailed requirements, significantly impacting clarity, completeness, and fairness. While basic administrative data is well-structured, the absence of key tender documentation details raises concerns about transparency and equal treatment.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes appropriately, and no disputes are reported. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria in the provided information and the missing tender reveal date are significant compliance concerns. The complex lot award rules would require careful justification in the full tender documents to ensure non-discrimination.

The overall description of the services and the division into three lots is clear. However, the lack of detailed technical and financial requirements, explicit evaluation criteria, and performance conditions makes it difficult for bidders to fully understand the expectations and how proposals will be assessed.

Basic administrative information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and duration, is complete. However, the tender is incomplete due to the critical absence of detailed requirements, technical specifications, and evaluation criteria in the provided content. The listed documents appear to be primarily administrative/OCDS data rather than full tender specifications.

The absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as it undermines transparency and the ability for bidders to prepare competitive and compliant proposals. While e-procurement is indicated and the value is disclosed, the complex rules for lot awards, though potentially aiming for broader participation, could introduce complexities that need careful management to ensure equal treatment.

Electronic submission is supported via the PCS-Tender platform, and the contract duration and estimated value are clearly specified. However, the absence of a direct document URL and a known contract start date slightly reduces the practicality for potential bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical and consistent. Minor inconsistencies include empty fields for 'Liable Person' and procedure codes, and the missing reveal date. The conversion from GBP lot values to EUR total value implies a 1:1 rate, which is unusual but internally consistent within the provided numbers.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. While the OCDS data package mentions 'community benefits', this is a weak signal and not elaborated upon in the main description or requirements, indicating a low emphasis on sustainability criteria.