Opracowanie dok. projektowo-kosztorysowej dla zadania pn. „Wykonanie hydroizolacji budynków Sądu Okręgowego w Płocku przy pl. G. Narutowicza 4 i 6” wraz z uzyskaniem decyzji o pozwoleniu na budowę

This tender for design and cost documentation for waterproofing works at the District Court in Płock is generally well-structured, with a clear description and ample documentation. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and details on e-submission, impacting practicality and fairness.

The tender adheres to general legal requirements with a clear CPV code and a specified procedure. Deadlines appear reasonable given the scope, and there's no indication of disputes. The presence of numerous attached documents suggests a structured approach to regulatory compliance.

The tender title and description are clear, outlining the specific project. The availability of 13 documents, including a tender notice and project scope, contributes to clarity. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria leaves some ambiguity for bidders.

Most basic information is present, including the organization, title, and contract duration. The estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission. While many documents are attached, the lack of financial details impacts overall completeness.

The tender is characterized by e-procurement, which promotes fairness. The full document access and clear project scope are positive. However, the lack of disclosed estimated value and the absence of explicit evaluation criteria could be perceived as less transparent, though no specific company tailoring is evident.

The tender is marked as 'E-Procurement', suggesting electronic submission is likely intended, but this is not explicitly stated as a requirement. The contract start date is not specified. The financing information is also missing, which can hinder practical planning for bidders.

Key fields such as title, reference number, organization, and deadline are populated. The dates are logical, and there are no reported suspensions or disputes. The CPV code is correctly assigned.

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 characteristics.