5460 - SRB Provision - Idris Davies 3-18

This tender exhibits significant data inconsistencies, particularly regarding submission deadlines and contract duration, which severely impact legal compliance, clarity, and fairness. While the project scope is clear, the absence of evaluation criteria and lack of e-submission are major drawbacks.

The tender suffers from critical legal compliance issues due to conflicting submission deadlines (January 30 vs. February 6) and the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria. The January 30 'Tender Return Date' being before today's date (January 27) is a severe error, making the tender legally problematic. Missing procedure codes are minor but contribute to the overall low score.

While the project's scope is clearly described, the tender's clarity is significantly undermined by conflicting dates for submission and contract duration. The complete lack of evaluation criteria and the mention of 'drawings and schedules of works' without explicit provision as tender documents create substantial ambiguity for potential bidders.

The tender provides basic information such as title, organization, and estimated value. However, it is incomplete due to the absence of evaluation criteria and the lack of explicit provision of detailed 'drawings and schedules of works' which are crucial for a comprehensive bid. Conflicting duration details also indicate incompleteness.

Fairness is severely compromised by the complete absence of evaluation criteria, which prevents transparent and objective assessment of bids. The lack of an electronic submission option creates a barrier to equal access, and the conflicting submission deadlines introduce confusion and potential disadvantage for bidders.

The practicality of this tender is low, primarily due to the absence of electronic submission, which is a significant hurdle in modern procurement. The conflicting contract durations make accurate planning difficult for potential contractors. While a contract start date is provided, the overall process is not streamlined.

Data consistency is critically poor. There are severe conflicts in key dates, with the 'Tender Return Date' in the description (January 30) being earlier than the official 'Submission Deadline' (February 6) and even earlier than today's date (January 27). The contract duration also conflicts (2 months vs 5 weeks). These inconsistencies make the tender unreliable.

The tender does not include any explicit requirements or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU funded, which typically encourages higher sustainability standards. Consequently, its sustainability score is low.