The Gamble - Main Works D&B

This tender for the Gamble Building Refurbishment Project is generally well-structured, with a clear description of works and a two-stage procurement process. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and details on e-submission, impacting practicality and fairness.

The tender adheres to the Procurement Act 2023 and outlines a competitive flexible procedure. The CPV code is appropriate for construction work. While deadlines are present, the contract start date coinciding with the submission deadline is a potential issue. No disputes are reported.

The description of the project's purpose and scope is clear, aiming to repurpose the Gamble Building into a cultural and learning hub. The two-stage design and build process is explained. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria for the main tender stage reduces overall clarity.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and CPV code are present. The contract duration is specified. However, the lack of available document content and missing evaluation criteria means essential details for bidders are not fully provided.

The two-stage process with a PSQ followed by a main tender offers a structured approach. The inclusion of social value is positive. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria for the main tender stage could lead to subjective assessments. The absence of explicit information on e-submission and full document access is a concern.

The tender specifies a two-stage process and mentions the need for a suitably qualified contractor. However, the lack of information regarding e-submission, the URL for documents, and the contract start date coinciding with the submission deadline significantly hinder practical application.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, estimated value, and CPV code are populated. The tender is active with no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logically presented, although the contract start date is problematic.

The tender mentions the inclusion of social value, which is a positive step. However, there is no explicit mention of green procurement, innovation, or if the project is EU funded, limiting the sustainability score.