Coroner's Removal Service

This tender provides clear basic information and service description but suffers from significant gaps in detailed legal requirements, evaluation criteria, and practical aspects like e-submission, which could hinder fair competition and efficient processing.

The tender correctly identifies the procedure type, CPV code, and references the national PA2023. The submission period is reasonable. However, the explicit lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements in the provided summaries is a significant compliance gap. The flag regarding missing evaluation criteria also points to potential non-compliance with full disclosure requirements.

The service description is clear and unambiguous. Technical and financial requirements are understandable for what is provided. However, the absence of detailed mandatory exclusion/eligibility criteria and the contradiction regarding the specification of evaluation criteria (70% cost / 30% quality mentioned, but flagged as "not specified") significantly reduce overall clarity for bidders.

Basic information, financial details, timeline, and location are complete. However, critical elements such as detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and a comprehensive breakdown of evaluation criteria (especially for the 30% quality component) are noted as missing or insufficiently detailed in the provided summaries.

The tender discloses the value and allows a reasonable preparation period. The "Divided into Parts" characteristic and regional service capacity suggest an effort to promote competition. However, the absence of detailed quality evaluation criteria and the lack of e-submission are significant barriers to fairness and equal access. The missing legal requirements also create an uneven playing field.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission capabilities is a major practical deficiency for a tender in 2026, potentially increasing administrative burden for both bidders and the procuring authority. A direct document URL is also not explicitly provided.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a notable inconsistency where the AI-extracted submission requirements mention a 70% cost / 30% quality weighting, but the system flags "No evaluation criteria specified." This suggests a lack of detailed, consistent information regarding evaluation.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to incorporate broader public value considerations.