Installation of lift within Town Hall

This tender demonstrates good clarity in project description and technical requirements but suffers from critical omissions regarding evaluation criteria and electronic submission, impacting fairness and completeness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and there are no disputes. However, the missing tender reveal date makes it impossible to verify if the legally required publication period was met, and some administrative fields (Liable Person, procedure codes) are empty.

The project description and AI-extracted technical requirements, especially regarding the Grade II* Listed Building, are clear. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly hinders clarity for potential bidders on how their proposals will be assessed.

Most basic information, including title, organization, value, duration, and location, is provided, and documents are available. Nevertheless, the tender is incomplete due to the lack of evaluation criteria and the missing reveal date, along with some empty administrative fields.

Document access and value disclosure are good, and requirements are specific but justifiable for a listed building. However, the absence of evaluation criteria makes the process opaque and potentially subjective, severely impacting fairness. The lack of e-submission also limits equal access.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders.

The tender shows good data consistency with no disputes or suspensions and logical dates. Minor inconsistencies arise from empty fields such as 'Liable Person' and procedure codes, and the missing reveal date.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria, indicating a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability aspects into the procurement process.