Southbank: Project External works and Electrical Landlord work: Consultant Design

This tender for consultancy services for external and electrical works offers a good foundation with clear basic information and a disclosed value. However, it relies heavily on an external tender portal for crucial details and lacks transparency regarding evaluation criteria, impacting clarity and completeness.

The tender generally adheres to legal compliance standards, with a clear CPV code and no reported disputes. The procedure type is specified. The main concern is the submission deadline relative to the contract start date which could be tighter, and the reliance on external documents for procedural clarity.

While the core service is identified, the description is vague, directing all details to an 'ITP pack' within a tender portal. This lack of readily available information within the notice itself hinders clear understanding of the scope and specific requirements. The absence of specified evaluation criteria is a significant clarity issue.

Essential information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and CPV code is present. However, the tender fails to provide the content of the tender documents directly, necessitating access to an external portal. The missing reveal date and contract start date being identical to the submission deadline also contribute to incompleteness.

The tender discloses the estimated value and provides access to the full document pack through an external portal, which promotes some level of fairness. The procedure is competitive. However, the lack of specified objective evaluation criteria could lead to perceived bias. There is no indication of requirements specifically tailored to individual companies.

The tender indicates the existence of tender documents and a contract duration. However, it is unclear if e-submission is mandatory or available, and the contract start date being the same as the submission deadline raises practical concerns for potential bidders. Financing information is not explicitly detailed.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, value, and CPV code are populated. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided, while having a consistency issue with the contract start and submission deadline, are otherwise logically presented within the timeline context.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not stated as EU funded, which limits the sustainability score.