General agreement for the renewal of bitumen-bound pavement and surface treatment on state-owned objects for a 3-year period

This tender for road pavement works exhibits good basic information and a reasonable timeline, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria, raising concerns about fairness and clarity.

The tender defines a clear open procedure with a reasonable submission deadline and no reported disputes. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' and 'No evaluation criteria specified' are significant compliance issues, as full transparency and clear award criteria are fundamental legal requirements.

The tender's title and description are clear, and requirements are documented across multiple files. However, the explicit absence of specified evaluation criteria for contract award is a critical clarity issue, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their offers will be judged.

Basic information, financial details, timeline, and location are well-provided. While documents are listed, 'Restricted document access' and the 'Missing evaluation criteria' represent significant gaps in the completeness of information available to potential bidders for a comprehensive submission.

The disclosed value and reasonable deadline are positive. However, 'Restricted document access' and the lack of 'evaluation criteria' severely undermine transparency and equal opportunity. The contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' also raises concerns about equal access to the submission process.

The tender specifies duration and provides financing context. However, the 'No e-submission' flag, if accurate, represents a significant practical hurdle for bidders in a modern procurement environment. 'Restricted document access' also hinders practical preparation.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes. However, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' being listed as a characteristic and the automated check stating 'No e-submission' is a notable inconsistency.

The tender explicitly lacks green procurement, social criteria, and innovation focus, as indicated by automated checks. While EU co-financing is a possibility, it does not inherently drive sustainability criteria within the tender's current structure.