Provision on Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSM)

This tender exhibits significant deficiencies in transparency and completeness, particularly regarding evaluation criteria and estimated value, which severely impact fairness and legal compliance. While the service description is clear, critical information for bidders is largely absent.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and there are no disputes. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and the classified estimated value are significant legal compliance issues. The missing reveal date also prevents a full assessment of deadline reasonableness.

The service description and purpose are clear. However, the tender critically lacks specified evaluation criteria and detailed requirements, which are essential for bidders to understand what is expected and how their proposals will be judged.

Basic information like title, organization, deadlines, and duration are present. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, evaluation criteria are missing, and detailed requirements are not provided in the summaries. The fact that all listed documents are marked 'Required: No' also raises concerns about the completeness of accessible tender specifications.

The classified estimated value and the complete absence of evaluation criteria severely undermine the fairness and transparency of the procurement process, making it difficult for bidders to prepare competitive offers. While e-procurement is supported and requirements don't appear tailored, these critical omissions are major concerns.

Electronic submission is supported, and key dates like contract start and duration are clearly specified. However, the classified value impacts bidders' ability to practically assess the scope and resource allocation. A direct document URL is not explicitly provided, though an e-procurement portal is mentioned.

Key fields such as 'Liable Person', 'Type Code', 'Procedure Code', 'Estimated Value', 'Reveal Date', 'Mandatory Exclusion Grounds', and 'Evaluation Criteria' are either missing or not fully populated. While dates are logical, the overall data completeness is low.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.