RFQ 2025/73 - PEACEPLUS Program Kultury Wspólnej Historii Prowadzony przez Społeczność Święte Miejsca Slieve Gullion

This tender for a community heritage program is generally well-structured with clear objectives, though it lacks specific evaluation criteria and detailed documentation. The value is modest, and the duration is reasonable for the scope.

The tender appears to comply with basic legal requirements for an open competition below the threshold. The CPV code is broad but acceptable. No disputes are noted. The procedure is described as 'open competition'. Deadlines are present, though the submission deadline might be considered short by some standards.

The description of the project is clear, outlining the objective of designing, coordinating, and delivering a cross-community festival and heritage collection. The technical requirements are directly derived from this description. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria impacts overall clarity for tenderers.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and contract start date. However, the crucial aspect of tender documents having no available content or summaries significantly hinders completeness, as potential bidders cannot fully assess the scope or requirements without them.

The tender is an open competition, which promotes fairness. The estimated value is disclosed, and the criteria, while not explicitly detailed for evaluation, are implied by the technical requirements. The process is described as below threshold open competition, suggesting a level playing field. Access to full documents is a concern due to their unavailability.

The tender specifies a contract duration and start date, and financing is implied by the estimated value. However, the lack of information regarding e-submission and the unavailability of document content reduce practicality for potential bidders who need to understand the full scope before preparing a submission.

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

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, innovation focus, or EU funding, which are common elements in modern tenders. The CPV code is very general and does not indicate specific sustainability goals.