External Surveyor for Disrepair

This tender has a clear service description and basic information but is significantly hampered by missing critical requirements, a complete absence of evaluation criteria, and a severe document management error. The lack of e-submission and sustainability considerations further detracts from its overall quality.

The tender correctly defines the procedure type and CPV code, and the submission period is reasonable. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements in the provided summary, coupled with the inclusion of an irrelevant contract award notice (Document 1) as part of the tender package, raises significant compliance concerns regarding proper documentation and disclosure.

The service description and technical capability requirements are clearly articulated. Nevertheless, the complete lack of specified evaluation criteria and the absence of explicit eligibility and financial requirements create substantial ambiguity for potential bidders, hindering their ability to prepare a comprehensive and competitive bid.

While essential information like title, value, duration, and location is present, the tender is notably incomplete due to the missing explicit mandatory exclusion, eligibility, financial requirements, and, most critically, evaluation criteria. The inclusion of an erroneous document (Document 1) further undermines its completeness and reliability.

The tender discloses the estimated value, and its technical requirements appear generic, not tailored. However, the absence of clear evaluation criteria makes the assessment process opaque and potentially subjective, undermining transparency. The lack of e-submission also creates an unnecessary barrier to equal access for all potential bidders.

Key practical details such as contract start date and duration are provided. The most significant practical drawback is the absence of electronic submission capabilities, which complicates the bidding process for suppliers and is not aligned with modern procurement best practices.

Basic tender fields are largely consistent, and dates are logical. However, a severe data inconsistency arises from Document 1 being an irrelevant contract award notice for a completely different project, which is a critical error in the tender documentation. The absence of key requirements also indicates data gaps.

The tender does not incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. This indicates a missed opportunity to align with modern sustainable procurement practices and leverage the procurement process for broader public benefit.