Usluga odgovarajućeg punoletnog lica u Sariju (SAAVS)

This tender for Surrey Appropriate Adult Service is in the planning stage, with a clear description of services and requirements. However, it lacks specific financial details, evaluation criteria, and information on submission procedures, impacting completeness and practicality.

The tender is in the planning stage, which explains the absence of a formal procedure code. The CPV code is provided, and there are no immediate indications of disputes. Deadlines are present, though the submission deadline might be considered short given the planning status. Regulatory compliance is assumed but not explicitly detailed.

The description of the Surrey Appropriate Adult Service is clear and detailed, outlining the scope, target audience, and core functions. The AI-extracted requirements are well-defined, providing a good understanding of what is expected from potential providers.

While basic information like title, organization, and description are present, key details are missing. The estimated value is not disclosed, and there is no content available for the tender documents. Crucially, evaluation criteria are not specified, and submission requirements are absent, leaving significant gaps.

The tender appears fair in its general requirements, focusing on service delivery capabilities and local knowledge. There are no obvious tailored requirements for specific companies. The value is classified but not disclosed, which could be a concern for some bidders. The lack of specified evaluation criteria could lead to perceived unfairness in the selection process.

The tender is in the planning stage, and the absence of an e-submission method is noted. While a contract start date and duration are provided, the lack of financing information and detailed submission procedures makes it less practical for immediate bidding. The availability of documents is limited to their existence, not their content.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, and dates are populated logically. The status is 'planning', which aligns with the absence of detailed procedural information. There are no reported disputes, contributing to good data consistency.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the provided tender information. This suggests a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.