Kvietimas teikti pasiūlymus plokščio stogo keitimo darbams

This tender for flat roof replacement works is generally well-structured with clear basic information and a disclosed value. However, it lacks detailed evaluation criteria and accessible tender documents, impacting its overall quality.

The tender appears to comply with basic legal requirements, including a clear CPV code and a stated procedure for a below-threshold open competition. The absence of disputes and a reasonable submission deadline contribute positively. However, the lack of a reveal date for documents is a minor procedural oversight.

The description of the works is clear, specifying the need for a new flat roof system according to the Garland specification at two locations during summer 2026. Eligibility and technical requirements are directly linked to the project's core needs. The main clarity issue stems from the absence of specified evaluation criteria.

Most essential information is present, including title, reference, organization, description, estimated value, and contract duration/start. However, the lack of accessible tender documents with content or summaries significantly hinders completeness, as potential bidders cannot fully assess the scope without them.

The tender is an open competition, which promotes fairness. The value is disclosed, and the requirements are generally objective and tied to the project's needs. The deadline is reasonable for a below-threshold contract. The primary concern is the lack of access to detailed tender documents, which could limit fair competition if crucial information is not readily available.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration, and the estimated value is provided. However, the lack of explicit mention of e-submission and the unavailability of document URLs reduce practicality. The financing information is not detailed, and the deadline, while active, is relatively short for complex roof works.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are populated logically. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided for the contract start and submission deadline are consistent with the project timeline.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation criteria. It is also not indicated as EU funded. This lack of focus on sustainability aspects results in a moderate score.