UKRI 5511

This tender is currently a preliminary market engagement notice, clearly outlining its purpose to gather interest for future crane maintenance works. While it provides essential basic information and is transparent about what is yet to be defined, it lacks detailed tender requirements, evaluation criteria, and electronic submission support, which are critical for a formal tender.

The notice, as a preliminary market engagement, appears compliant with the purpose of gathering market information. The CPV code is appropriate, and there are no reported disputes. While the procedure type is not yet defined, this is expected at the planning stage. The timeline for expressing interest (14 days) is reasonable.

The description of the required services is clear. The notice is explicit about its preliminary nature, clearly stating that full requirements, evaluation criteria, and financial details will be provided in the formal tender. This transparency about what is *not yet* available is a strength for a PME. However, as a 'tender' document, the absence of these details means the full scope and expectations are not yet clear.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and location (NUTS code, site visit location) are provided. Documents are attached. However, critical elements for a formal tender, such as detailed eligibility, technical, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria, are explicitly stated as missing, which significantly impacts completeness from a full tender perspective.

The value is disclosed, and the requirements for expressing interest are generic. Full document access is indicated. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria for the eventual tender poses a future fairness risk. The lack of electronic submission support is a notable concern for equal access and modern procurement practices.

The contract start date and duration are known. However, the absence of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback, potentially increasing administrative burden for suppliers.

The data provided is largely consistent. Dates are logical and sequential for the planning and market engagement phases. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The 'Type' and 'Procedure' fields being 'None' and 'Liable Person' being empty are consistent with a preliminary planning notice.

There is no mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus within the provided information. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability considerations into the procurement process.