Sutartis 61 – Baseinų įrangos priežiūra

This tender for pool plant maintenance services is generally well-structured, with clear basic information and a reasonable estimated value. However, it lacks detailed evaluation criteria and specific submission requirements, impacting its overall completeness and practicality.

The tender appears to comply with basic legal requirements, including a clear procedure (below threshold open competition) and a proper CPV code. Deadlines are present, though the submission deadline might be considered short by some. No disputes are indicated. The absence of a reveal date is a minor procedural oversight.

The description of the works is clear, outlining the need for routine planned maintenance and responsive repairs for pool plant services. Technical capability requirements are adequately defined, focusing on service delivery within the borough and adaptability to operational hours. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria leaves some ambiguity on how bids will be assessed.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. The contract start date is also specified. However, the absence of detailed submission requirements and the lack of content in the provided tender documents significantly reduce its completeness.

The tender is an open competition, suggesting a fair process. The estimated value is disclosed, and the criteria, while not fully detailed, are focused on technical capability. The lack of specific company tailoring is positive. However, the absence of explicit information regarding e-submission and the lack of detailed evaluation criteria could be perceived as minor fairness concerns.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the lack of information regarding e-submission and the absence of detailed submission requirements make the practical aspects of bidding less straightforward. Financing information is not explicitly detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and dates are populated logically. There are no indications of suspension or disputes. The dates provided are consistent with each other.

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