Sutartis dėl apsaugos paslaugų, įskaitant stacionarią apsaugą, reagavimą į ekstremalias situacijas ir raktų saugojimą

This tender for security services is generally well-structured with clear basic information and a reasonable estimated value. However, it lacks detailed evaluation criteria and accessible tender documents, impacting its overall practicality and completeness.

The tender adheres to standard open procedure requirements, with a clear CPV code and no reported disputes. The estimated value and duration are specified. The deadline, while potentially short, is within a typical range for this type of procurement. The absence of a reveal date is a minor procedural oversight.

The description of services is clear and concise, outlining the core requirements for keyholding, emergency response, static guarding, and property access. The AI-extracted requirements list key areas to be addressed by bidders, indicating a structured approach to information gathering.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. However, the critical issue of zero tender documents with content significantly hinders completeness, as bidders cannot access the full scope of requirements or submission details. The lack of specified evaluation criteria also leaves a gap.

The tender is an open procedure, suggesting a fair opportunity for all eligible bidders. The estimated value is disclosed, and the criteria for eligibility and technical capability are mentioned, implying objective assessment. The lack of specific company tailoring is positive. However, the absence of e-submission and accessible documents could be perceived as less fair.

The tender is hampered by the lack of e-submission, requiring a potentially less efficient manual process. The absence of accessible tender documents further reduces practicality. While the contract start date and duration are clear, the financing information is not explicitly detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and dates are populated consistently. There are no reported suspensions or disputes, and the dates provided are logical within the tender timeline.

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