Plumbing supplies delivery

This tender for plumbing supplies demonstrates good clarity and data consistency, with essential information provided and evaluation criteria clearly defined. However, concerns regarding restricted document access, potential lack of e-submission, and absence of sustainability considerations impact its overall quality and fairness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code clearly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. Evaluation criteria (lowest price) are specified in the detailed documents. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' could pose a challenge to full transparency and compliance with public access principles.

The tender description is clear, and the AI-extracted requirements provide a good overview of what is expected from bidders regarding exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission aspects. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as the lowest price.

All basic information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, and classification, is provided. Key requirements and evaluation criteria are defined within the referenced documents. However, the restricted access to these documents limits the practical completeness for potential bidders.

The primary concern for fairness is the 'Restricted document access,' which hinders equal access to information for all potential bidders. While evaluation criteria are objective (lowest price) and requirements do not appear tailored, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' also raises questions about equitable submission methods.

Practicality is impacted by the flagged 'No e-submission' (if accurate), which would require physical submission and potentially increase administrative burden. The absence of a direct document URL and an unknown contract start date further reduce the tender's practical ease of use for bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The main inconsistency lies in the 'Characteristics: E-Procurement' being stated while an automated check flags 'No e-submission.'

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.