Grounds Maintenance

This tender for grounds maintenance services is critically flawed by significant documentation errors, vague requirements, and a complete absence of evaluation criteria, severely impacting its fairness and overall quality.

While the submission period is reasonable and the CPV code is appropriate, the tender exhibits notable legal compliance issues. These include the lack of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, the inclusion of an irrelevant document (Attachment A-11094), and the failure to provide a downloadable 'Tender Notice,' which are fundamental disclosure and procedural requirements.

The tender's general description is clear, but the clarity of requirements is severely compromised. Eligibility and technical capability requirements are vague ('suitably qualified,' 'experienced'), lacking specific metrics. Critically, there are no specified evaluation criteria, making it impossible for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, and duration is present. However, the tender is significantly incomplete due to critical missing elements. The absence of evaluation criteria, the failure to provide the 'Schedule of Work' content, and the issues with attached documents (irrelevant file, failed download) represent major gaps.

Fairness is severely undermined by the complete absence of objective evaluation criteria, which introduces significant subjectivity into the selection process. Furthermore, issues with document access (irrelevant document, failed download) and the lack of electronic submission create barriers to equal opportunity and transparency for potential bidders.

The tender provides clear contract start and duration dates, and the estimated value is known. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders. Issues with document accessibility also hinder the practical application of the tender.

While key dates are logical and consistent, the data consistency is severely impacted by the inclusion of a completely irrelevant document (Attachment A-11094). Minor inconsistencies include missing codes for the tender type/procedure and an unpopulated 'Liable Person' field.

The tender shows no indication of incorporating green procurement principles, social aspects, or an innovation focus. This represents a significant missed opportunity to align with modern public procurement best practices and contribute to broader sustainability goals.