Pastatų inžinerinių sistemų remonto ir priežiūros paslaugos

This tender for building engineering system repair and maintenance services by Trakai History Museum is generally well-structured, though it lacks specific evaluation criteria and clear details on the submission process beyond e-procurement. The estimated value is moderate.

The tender adheres to general legal compliance standards with a clear CPV code, specified organization, and a stated estimated value. The procedure is open, and the organization is a public law entity. However, the absence of revealed date information is a minor oversight. The deadline, while within the bounds of a typical open procedure, could be perceived as somewhat short given the complexity implied by technical specifications and multiple documents.

The description of services and location is clear. The mandatory and eligibility requirements are outlined, and technical capability is defined. Multiple provided documents (Technical Specification, Contract Conditions) aim to clarify scope. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria leaves potential bidders unsure of how their submissions will be assessed.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. Key documents like technical specifications, bid forms, and contract conditions are attached. The submission deadline is clearly stated. The primary gap is the lack of detailed evaluation criteria, which impacts completeness for bidders needing to understand selection metrics.

The tender is open, and the value is disclosed, promoting transparency. The use of e-procurement is a positive aspect of fairness. All essential tender documents are accessible, and the organization's nature as a public body implies adherence to procurement laws. There are no obvious tailored requirements to specific companies.

The tender utilizes e-procurement, which is a practical submission method. A contract start date is implied by the duration and submission deadline, though not explicitly stated. Financing information is not detailed, which could be a practical concern for bidders. The duration of 25 months is reasonable for the services described.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are populated logically. The dates for the submission deadline and opening are consistent. The contract duration aligns with typical service contracts. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The tender status is 'active', indicating it is currently open for submissions.

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