Customer Perception Surveys

This tender provides a clear service description and basic information, but significant gaps exist in detailed evaluation criteria, document accessibility, and the absence of electronic submission, impacting overall transparency and practicality.

The tender clearly defines the open procedure and assigns an appropriate CPV code. The contract timeline appears logical. However, the absence of a 'reveal date' makes it impossible to verify compliance with minimum advertising periods, and 'Mandatory Exclusion Grounds' are mentioned without detail, which is a compliance gap.

The description of the required service and the technical capabilities are clear and unambiguous. The 70% quality and 30% price evaluation split is stated. However, the lack of detailed sub-criteria for the 70% quality component significantly reduces clarity for bidders on how their proposals will be assessed.

Basic information, financial details, and contract duration are well-specified. However, the content summaries of the attached documents suggest a lack of comprehensive tender specifications or detailed instructions to bidders. The absence of detailed sub-criteria for quality also impacts completeness, and the 'Lot L-1' document stating it's 'no longer publicly visible' is a significant concern.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the requirements appear generic, not tailored to a specific company. However, the lack of detailed sub-criteria for quality evaluation compromises objectivity and transparency. The absence of electronic submission and the 'no longer publicly visible' status of a document are significant barriers to equal access and fairness.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission is a major practical drawback for bidders. The issue with a document being 'no longer publicly visible' also creates practical difficulties for accessing complete information.

The tender exhibits good data consistency with logical dates and no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include the missing 'Liable Person' field and empty codes for the procedure type.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social aspects (beyond the inherent nature of the service), or innovation focus in its criteria or requirements. While the service itself addresses social housing, the tender lacks specific sustainability clauses for the supplier.