20/21 Aldermanbury - Cost Consultant

This tender provides a clear scope for cost consultancy services but suffers from significant omissions regarding evaluation criteria, detailed financial requirements, and explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, impacting its completeness and fairness. The lack of e-submission also presents a practical barrier.

The tender defines the procedure type and correctly assigns the CPV code. Deadlines appear reasonable. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria and explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the summaries are significant legal compliance concerns, as these are fundamental requirements for transparent and lawful procurement.

The description of services and technical capability requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the overall clarity of the procurement process is diminished by the absence of evaluation criteria and detailed performance conditions, making it difficult for bidders to fully understand the assessment methodology.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and deadlines are complete. However, critical elements like detailed financial requirements, explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, and especially evaluation criteria are missing. The 'Divided into Parts' characteristic is also not elaborated.

The technical requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. The estimated value is disclosed. However, the absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises the transparency and objectivity of the assessment process. Furthermore, the lack of e-submission creates a barrier to equal access for all potential bidders.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. While documents are available, a direct URL for comprehensive tender documents is not explicitly provided.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include 'Value Classified: Yes' despite the value being disclosed, and missing codes for the procedure type.

The tender does not explicitly include green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. However, the requirement for 'whole-life and carbon cost analysis' as part of the services indirectly incorporates a sustainability dimension, preventing a lower score.