Vehicle technical maintenance, repair, and spare parts acquisition

This tender for vehicle maintenance services exhibits significant transparency and completeness issues, particularly regarding restricted document access, undisclosed estimated value, and missing evaluation criteria, which severely impact fairness and clarity despite a clear description.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' and 'Estimated Value: Not disclosed' flags indicate significant transparency issues that may hinder full compliance with public procurement principles.

While the tender title and description are clear, and requirements are categorized, the explicit flag 'No evaluation criteria specified' is a major deficiency. This significantly reduces clarity for potential bidders regarding how their proposals will be assessed.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided. However, the absence of an 'Estimated Value' and the 'Missing evaluation criteria' are critical omissions that render the tender incomplete for comprehensive bidder preparation.

Fairness is severely compromised by 'Restricted document access', the undisclosed 'Estimated Value', and the critical absence of 'No evaluation criteria specified'. Additionally, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and 'No e-submission' issue raises concerns about equal access and transparency of the submission process.

The tender's practicality is low due to the flagged 'No e-submission', which is a significant hurdle in modern procurement. 'Restricted document access' and the undisclosed 'Estimated Value' further complicate bidder participation and planning.

Dates are logical and there are no disputes, which is positive. However, the 'Estimated Value: Not disclosed' represents a missing key field. More critically, there are direct contradictions regarding 'E-Procurement' vs. 'No e-submission' and 'evaluation methods' in the summary vs. 'Missing evaluation criteria' in the issues, indicating significant data inconsistency.

The tender shows a complete absence of sustainability considerations, with no indication of green procurement, social criteria, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.