19 Hollands Road - Rénovation

This tender for refurbishment work at 19 Hollands Road is generally well-structured with clear basic information and a reasonable estimated value. However, it lacks detailed requirements for submission, evaluation criteria, and specific financial/eligibility criteria, which impacts completeness and clarity.

The tender appears to comply with general procurement principles by having a clear CPV code and being an open competition. Deadlines are specified, and there are no reported disputes. However, the absence of an 'reveal date' is a minor procedural oversight.

The description of the works is understandable and clearly outlines the scope of the refurbishment. Technical capability requirements are listed as specific tasks to be performed, providing a good basis for understanding the project's needs. However, the lack of explicit evaluation criteria creates ambiguity in how bids will be assessed.

Most basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration is provided. However, crucial details regarding submission requirements, financial criteria, and specific eligibility criteria are missing, leaving gaps in the overall completeness of the documentation.

The tender is an open competition, suggesting a fair process. The estimated value is disclosed, and the procedure is clearly defined as 'Below threshold - open competition'. There are no explicit requirements tailored to specific companies, promoting a level playing field. The lack of e-submission is a point against it, but overall fairness is good.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the absence of an e-submission option and the lack of explicit financing information (beyond the estimated value) reduce its practicality for bidders. The availability of document URLs is not explicitly stated but implied by the number of documents.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and timeline are populated consistently. Dates provided (submission deadline, contract start) are logical and do not indicate any immediate inconsistencies. There are no reported suspensions or disputes.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of emphasis on these modern procurement considerations.