20/21 Aldermanbury - Project Manager

This tender provides a clear project description and technical requirements but suffers from significant gaps in crucial areas such as evaluation criteria, eligibility, and financial requirements, alongside a lack of e-submission, impacting fairness and practicality.

The tender demonstrates good legal compliance with a reasonable submission period (28 days), clearly defined procedure type, and appropriate CPV codes. No disputes or suspensions are noted. However, the absence of a 'reveal date' and explicit mention of specific legal frameworks (beyond implied UK regulations) slightly reduces the score.

The project description and technical capability requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the tender critically lacks specified evaluation criteria, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. Furthermore, the AI-extracted requirements indicate no explicit mandatory exclusion, eligibility, or financial requirements, which are fundamental for comprehensive clarity.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location are well-provided. All four tender documents are available. Nevertheless, the tender is incomplete due to the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria and the lack of explicit mandatory exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the technical requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises the objectivity and transparency of the selection process, making it difficult for bidders to compete fairly. The lack of e-submission also creates an unnecessary barrier to equal access.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. A significant practical drawback is the absence of electronic submission capabilities, which is a standard expectation in modern public procurement. While documents are listed, a direct URL for access is not explicitly provided in the given data.

The tender information is largely consistent, with key fields populated, logical dates, and no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include missing codes for the 'Type' and 'Procedure' fields, and the 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside a disclosed estimated value, which is a common but slightly ambiguous practice.

This tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. Consequently, its contribution to broader sustainability goals appears minimal.