Upper Mount Redevelopment Works

This tender provides clear project details and supports e-submission, but critically lacks explicit evaluation criteria and requires external portal access for fundamental legal and eligibility requirements, impacting overall transparency and completeness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and the submission period of 36 days is reasonable. However, the provided information explicitly lacks evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and eligibility requirements, which are fundamental for legal compliance and transparency. While these may be in the full documents, their absence from the summary is a concern.

The project description, scope, and core technical/financial requirements are clearly articulated. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria significantly reduces overall clarity, as bidders cannot fully understand how their proposals will be assessed. The need to refer to external documents for basic legal requirements also detracts from immediate clarity.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, and duration are well-defined. However, the tender information is incomplete due to the explicit absence of evaluation criteria and the need to access external documents for mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements. The provided documents are mostly metadata, not the full tender specifications.

The tender benefits from disclosed value, e-procurement enablement, and generic requirements, with the 'Divided into Parts' characteristic potentially enhancing participation. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as it undermines transparency and objectivity in the assessment process.

Electronic submission is supported via the Kent Business Portal, and direct URLs are provided. The contract duration and anticipated start dates are clearly specified. The main practical drawback is the necessity to navigate to an external portal for all detailed tender documents, including fundamental legal and eligibility criteria, which adds an extra step for bidders.

The tender exhibits good data consistency with most key fields populated, no disputes, and logical dates. The estimated value conversion from EUR to GBP is also consistent. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and missing codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure'.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. It is a local council project and not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. Its neutrality in this area results in a moderate score.