Świadczenie usług planowanej konserwacji zapobiegawczej sprężarek powietrza w Instytucie Pirbright

This tender is generally well-structured with clear technical requirements and a reasonable estimated value. However, it lacks explicit evaluation criteria and details on the submission process, impacting its overall practicality and legal compliance.

The tender adheres to general public procurement principles with a clear procedure and CPV code. Deadlines appear reasonable given the scope. However, the absence of explicitly stated evaluation criteria could be a minor compliance concern, as it might not fully align with all regulatory expectations for transparency in award decisions. No disputes or suspensions are noted.

The description of the required services is detailed and comprehensive, outlining specific tasks, compliance requirements, and expected outcomes. The scope of work is well-defined, and the list of manufacturers in scope provides good clarity for potential bidders. Requirements are documented clearly.

Most basic information is present, including title, organization, estimated value, contract duration, and start date. The CPV code is provided. However, the tender documents themselves are not accessible or summarized, which significantly impacts completeness. The absence of explicit evaluation criteria also contributes to a lack of completeness in the award process information.

The tender is an open procedure, allowing broad participation. The estimated value is disclosed, and the requirements, while specific to the service, do not appear to be tailored to a single company. The list of manufacturers is broad enough to allow multiple suppliers to bid. The use of e-procurement is implied but not explicitly stated as mandatory for submission.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the lack of information regarding e-submission methods and the absence of accessible tender documents significantly hinder practicality. The deadline, while not flagged as a primary concern per rules, is relatively short for a 36-month contract, potentially impacting the ability of bidders to prepare comprehensive submissions.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are populated logically. Dates for contract start and submission deadline are provided and appear consistent. There are no noted disputes or suspensions.

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