Flintshire County Council Out of hours response and supervision for Highway services

This tender provides clear basic information and technical requirements but suffers from significant omissions regarding mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility criteria, and detailed quality evaluation criteria. The absence of e-submission also impacts fairness and practicality.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and there are no reported disputes. However, the explicit absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements in the provided information is a significant legal compliance gap. The missing reveal date also impacts transparency regarding the full tender period.

The service description and technical capability requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the lack of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and detailed sub-criteria for the 30% quality evaluation component significantly reduces overall clarity for potential bidders.

Most basic information, including title, reference, organization, value, duration, and location, is provided. Documents are also available. Nevertheless, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and detailed quality evaluation criteria. The mention of 'Divided into Parts' without further detail also indicates incompleteness.

The tender discloses the estimated value and the technical requirements appear generic, not tailored. However, the absence of detailed quality evaluation sub-criteria can lead to subjective assessments, reducing transparency and fairness. Crucially, the lack of e-submission is a significant barrier to equal access and fair competition in modern procurement.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, which is practical. However, the absence of electronic submission is a major practical drawback for bidders. While documents are available, a direct URL was not explicitly provided, which is a minor inconvenience.

Key fields are mostly populated, and there are no reported suspensions or disputes. Dates are logical and consistent. The only minor inconsistency is the empty 'Liable Person' field. The stated evaluation weightings (70% price, 30% quality) are consistent across summaries, despite a flag about 'No evaluation criteria specified' which likely refers to detailed sub-criteria.

The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a complete absence of sustainability considerations.