GMCA 1633 Asukaskyselypalvelu

This tender for Residents' Surveys Service by GMCA is generally well-structured, with clear objectives and financial information. However, it lacks detailed evaluation criteria and accessible documentation, impacting its overall quality.

The tender adheres to basic legal requirements by providing a clear procedure (open procedure) and a CPV code. Deadlines appear reasonable for an open procedure, and there are no immediate indications of disputes or regulatory non-compliance based on the provided information. The absence of a reveal date is a minor procedural oversight.

The description of the service required is clear, outlining the need for resident engagement, fieldwork, reporting, and an interactive dashboard. The eligibility and technical capability requirements are also well-defined, providing a good understanding of what is expected from potential bidders.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. However, the lack of accessible tender documents with content or summaries significantly hinders completeness, as bidders cannot fully assess the scope without them. The absence of specified evaluation criteria also leaves a crucial piece of information missing.

The tender is an open procedure, promoting broad participation. The estimated value is disclosed, and the criteria, while not fully specified, are described in terms of required capacity and expertise, suggesting an objective approach. The lack of specific company tailoring is positive. However, the absence of explicit e-submission details and the inability to access document content could be perceived as minor barriers.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the lack of explicit information regarding e-submission methods and the unavailability of document URLs or content reduce its practicality for bidders who need to access and submit information efficiently. Financing information is not detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are populated. The dates provided (submission deadline, contract start) are logical and do not present inconsistencies. There are no reported disputes or suspensions, contributing to high data consistency.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation requirements. It is also not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of focus on sustainability criteria within this procurement process.