T2679 PEACEPLUS Animation activity for Access to the Hills project

This tender presents a clear project description with strong social objectives but suffers from significant documentation gaps, particularly the absence of evaluation criteria and critical data inconsistencies, hindering transparency and fairness.

The procedure type and CPV code are clear, and no disputes are noted. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria, along with a missing reveal date, indicates potential non-compliance with full disclosure standards for an EU-funded project.

The project description and technical requirements are clearly articulated. Nevertheless, the critical absence of evaluation criteria and the lack of comprehensive eligibility, exclusion, and financial requirements significantly reduce the overall clarity of the tender process for potential bidders.

While basic information, timeline, and location details are provided, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of evaluation criteria, specific exclusion/eligibility/financial requirements, and the inclusion of an entirely irrelevant document.

The lack of specified evaluation criteria is a critical fairness flaw, preventing objective assessment of bids. The absence of e-submission also creates barriers to equal access, despite the technical requirements appearing generic.

The tender provides a clear contract start date, duration, and funding source. However, the absence of electronic submission capabilities is a significant practical drawback for bidders.

Data consistency is poor due to a major discrepancy in the estimated value (EUR vs. GBP), the inclusion of an entirely irrelevant document summary, and a contradiction regarding EU funding status. Several key fields are also unpopulated.

The project inherently possesses strong social sustainability aspects through its focus on community connection, engagement, and cross-community events. It is also supported by EU funding (PEACEPLUS), which typically promotes higher sustainability standards, despite automated flags suggesting otherwise for green/innovation.