MTC for Planned Preventive Maintenance of Fire & Security

This tender for fire and security system maintenance exhibits significant deficiencies in completeness and clarity, primarily due to inaccessible critical documents and the absence of explicit evaluation criteria, which severely impacts fairness and legal compliance.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and there are no reported disputes. However, the absence of a clear reveal date, explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the summary, and crucially, the lack of specified evaluation criteria, represent notable compliance gaps. The inaccessibility of economic selection criteria documents also raises concerns.

While the service description is clear and unambiguous, the tender suffers from a critical lack of clarity regarding evaluation criteria and comprehensive financial requirements. The inaccessibility of key technical and economic documents further obscures the full scope and assessment process for potential bidders.

Basic information such as title, organization, value, and duration is provided. However, the tender is significantly incomplete due to critical documents being inaccessible ('Page not found' and 'Download failed'). Furthermore, explicit financial requirements and evaluation criteria are entirely missing, and the 'Liable Person' field is empty.

The tender promotes e-procurement and discloses the estimated value, and technical requirements appear generic. Nevertheless, the absence of specified evaluation criteria and the inability to access critical tender documents ('economic1', 'technical1') create a substantial barrier to fair competition and transparency, making it difficult for bidders to prepare informed submissions.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration is clearly stated. However, the lack of a specified contract start date, the absence of explicit financial requirements, and the inaccessibility of key documents ('economic1', 'technical1') pose practical challenges for bidders in preparing and understanding the full scope of the engagement.

While most key fields are populated and dates are logical, there are several inconsistencies. The 'Liable Person' field is empty, and the 'Type' and 'Procedure' codes are missing. Critically, the summary for the 'OCDS Record' document incorrectly refers to a 'waste management tender,' which is a severe data integrity issue given the actual tender's focus on fire and security systems.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation-focused criteria. It is also not EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.