Provision of PEFC recertification and surveillance audit services

This tender demonstrates good clarity and data consistency but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and an undisclosed estimated value, impacting fairness and practicality. While legally compliant in most aspects, the short submission period for an open procedure also presents a challenge.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, featuring a clearly defined open procedure and correctly assigned CPV codes. The 8-day submission period, while short for an open procedure, technically meets the minimum legal threshold. However, the undisclosed estimated value is a transparency concern.

The tender description is clear, and requirements are well-documented across multiple parts and supporting documents. Evaluation criteria are specified, either as lowest price or detailed in specific parts, and performance conditions refer to relevant documents. AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive and understandable.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are all provided. All 12 tender documents are attached and summarized. The primary gap is the undisclosed estimated value, which is a significant omission for a complete tender overview.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the 'Restricted document access' flag, which creates a major barrier to equal participation and transparency. The undisclosed estimated value further hinders bidders' ability to assess the opportunity fairly. While e-procurement is enabled, its benefits are undermined by restricted access, and the short submission deadline adds pressure.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration is clearly specified. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a critical practical impediment for potential bidders. The absence of an estimated value also makes it difficult for companies to plan their financial proposals effectively.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The only notable inconsistency is the missing estimated value.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, representing a missed opportunity to promote broader sustainability goals through public procurement.