Maintenance and Periodic Servicing of Air Conditioning and Air Handling Plant - 2025

This tender exhibits significant deficiencies in transparency and fairness due to missing evaluation criteria, unclear mandatory exclusion grounds, and contradictory information regarding its structure. While the service description is clear, critical gaps in documentation and data consistency pose substantial risks to the procurement process.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and no disputes are reported. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and evaluation criteria, along with a missing reveal date, represents significant gaps in legal compliance regarding transparency and equal treatment.

The service description and technical requirements are generally clear. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria and detailed mandatory exclusion grounds severely impacts clarity. Furthermore, the contradiction between the tender being 'Divided into Parts' and requiring a 'single provider' creates significant ambiguity.

Basic information such as title, organization, deadlines, value, and duration are provided. However, critical elements like the reveal date, detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, and evaluation criteria are missing. The failure to download one of the listed tender documents ('OCDS Record') also indicates incompleteness.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the absence of evaluation criteria, which prevents bidders from understanding how their proposals will be judged. The failed download of a tender document restricts full access, and the lack of e-submission can create barriers. The contradiction regarding 'single provider' for a tender 'divided into parts' also raises concerns about potential restrictions on competition.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, which is practical. However, the absence of electronic submission support and the failure of a key document to download present practical hurdles for potential bidders.

There are significant inconsistencies in the tender information. The estimated value is stated as 600,000.00 EUR in the basic information but as £500,000 in document summaries. Crucially, the 'Characteristics' state the tender is 'Divided into Parts', while 'Eligibility Requirements' mandate a 'single provider', which is a direct contradiction.

The tender shows no explicit focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.