20/21 Aldermanbury - MEP Services

This tender provides a clear description of the required services but its quality is significantly hampered by the complete absence of evaluation criteria, impacting transparency and fairness. The lack of e-submission is also a notable drawback.

The procedure type and CPV code are correctly assigned, and there are no disputes or suspensions. However, the missing reveal date and the lack of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds (beyond the heading) are minor compliance issues. The 28-day submission period is generally acceptable for an open procedure.

The description of services and the AI-extracted technical requirements are clear and well-defined, covering key aspects like RIBA stages and BIM. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a major flaw that severely impacts clarity for bidders on how their proposals will be assessed.

Most basic information, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and documents are present. Requirements are listed. However, the critical missing element is the evaluation criteria, which is a fundamental part of a complete tender package and significantly reduces this score.

The technical requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. However, the complete lack of specified evaluation criteria makes the process inherently non-transparent and unfair to potential bidders. The absence of e-submission also creates barriers to equal access.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. The main practical drawback is the stated lack of e-submission, which is a standard expectation for modern public tenders. An explicit document URL is not provided, though documents are listed.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. The main inconsistencies are the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag contradicting the provided estimated value, and some empty code fields (Type Code, Procedure Code) and 'Liable Person'.

The tender explicitly mentions supporting the Authority’s 'sustainability and decarbonisation objectives,' which is a positive inclusion. However, it lacks specific green procurement criteria, social clauses, or an innovation focus, which would elevate its sustainability profile further.