Provision of Pantomime for the Market Place Theatre and Arts Centre

This tender for pantomime productions presents a clear service description but suffers from significant deficiencies in clarity, completeness, and fairness due to missing evaluation criteria, vague requirements, and data inconsistencies.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly. While the 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the disclosed value, this appears to be a data entry inconsistency rather than a legal non-compliance. The absence of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds in the AI summary is a transparency concern, but the overall structure appears compliant.

The service description is clear regarding the nature of the pantomime productions. However, the tender critically lacks specified evaluation criteria, and the eligibility and technical requirements are high-level and vague (e.g., 'suitably qualified,' 'experienced,' 'ability to deliver') without measurable definitions. Financial requirements are entirely absent.

Basic information like title, organization, reference, and deadlines are present. However, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of detailed evaluation criteria, specific financial requirements, and comprehensive submission instructions. The contract duration is contradictory (12 months vs. 2026/2027/2028), and details on 'Divided into Parts' are missing.

The absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as it hinders objective and transparent assessment. The lack of e-submission creates a barrier to equal access. While requirements are not explicitly tailored, their vague nature could lead to subjective interpretation, potentially disadvantaging some bidders.

The tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The contradictory information regarding contract duration (12 months vs. 3 years subject to review) creates uncertainty for bidders in planning resources. While a contract start date is provided, the overall practicality is hampered by these issues.

Several inconsistencies are present: 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the disclosed estimated value, and the stated 'Contract Duration: 12 months' conflicts with the description of productions for '2026 / 2027 / 2028'. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. It is also not indicated as EU funded, suggesting a lack of focus on broader sustainability objectives.