Disposal of decommissioned wooden sleepers 2026-2028

This tender for the disposal of wooden sleepers is generally well-structured with comprehensive documentation and a clear scope, but suffers from a critical inconsistency regarding its evaluation criteria. While promoting e-procurement and sustainability, it could improve clarity on contract duration and consistency in key data fields.

The tender demonstrates good legal compliance, with reasonable submission deadlines, appropriate CPV code assignment, and no detected disputes. The procedure type, a simplified procedure for a framework agreement with mini-competitions, is adequately clarified within the tender documents, aligning with national procurement regulations.

The service description and technical requirements are clear and well-documented. However, a significant inconsistency exists regarding the evaluation criteria: the basic information states 'relative_weighting,' while Document 3 and AI-extracted financial requirements specify '100% lowest price.' This contradiction creates ambiguity for potential bidders.

Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, description, deadlines, and estimated value, is provided. All 13 supporting documents are attached and summarized, detailing requirements and contract conditions. However, the explicit contract duration is not stated in the basic information, though implied by the title and detailed in framework agreement documents.

The tender promotes fairness through disclosed value, reasonable deadlines, and the use of e-procurement for equal access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. The evaluation criterion, once clarified as 100% lowest price, is objective, and the tie-breaking rule by drawing lots is transparent.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are supported, enhancing practicality. Financing information is available through referenced contract documents. However, a specific contract start date is not explicitly provided in the main overview, and a direct document URL is not included in the provided data, which could slightly hinder immediate access for some users.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. The primary concern is the direct contradiction between the stated 'relative_weighting' for evaluation criteria and the explicit '100% lowest price' detailed in the evaluation document and AI-extracted requirements. This is a significant data inconsistency.

The tender explicitly includes 'Green Procurement' and 'Social Criteria,' which is positive, and the service involves hazardous waste management. However, the automated check notes a lack of innovation focus and that it is not EU funded, suggesting it may not be pushing the highest possible sustainability standards.