Remont toaletów w budynku Harolda Wilsona Uniwersytetu w Huddersfield

This tender for toilet refurbishments at the University of Huddersfield is generally well-structured, with clear project details and financial information. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and details on sustainability, and relies heavily on an external portal for full documentation.

The tender appears to comply with general procurement regulations for below-threshold open competitions. The CPV code is appropriate, and there are no immediate flags for disputes or regulatory non-compliance. The deadline, while potentially tight, is not explicitly unreasonable for this type of work. The absence of a reveal date is a minor procedural oversight.

The project description is clear and provides sufficient detail about the scope of work, including the number of facilities to be refurbished. The requirements are listed as mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical capability, financial, and submission requirements, indicating a structured approach. 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, contract duration, and start date. The CPV code is provided. However, the tender documents themselves are not directly accessible with content summaries, requiring users to navigate to an external portal, which impacts the perceived completeness of the information provided within the notice itself.

The tender is an open competition, which promotes fairness. The estimated value is disclosed, and the process is described as below threshold open competition. The use of an e-sourcing portal is standard. There are no explicit requirements tailored to specific companies, suggesting a fair approach to market access.

The tender requires e-submission via a specified portal, which is a practical approach. The contract start date and duration are clearly defined. However, the lack of explicit financing information and the reliance on an external portal for full details can be a minor inconvenience.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated consistently. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided for submission deadline and contract start are logically sequenced.

The tender notice does not mention any specific green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria within this specific procurement.