Selman & Wellday Parkeringsplats & Garage - Upphandling av en Design- och Byggentreprenör för Utveckling av Bostäder för Social Hyra

This tender provides a clear scope for a design and build contract with a reasonable estimated value. However, it lacks specific details on evaluation criteria and has limited information on sustainability aspects.

The tender generally adheres to legal requirements with a specified CPV code and a defined procedure. Deadlines are provided, though the gap between the tender date (2026-03-20) and the submission deadline (2027-01-11) is substantial, raising questions about the intended publication date versus the actual data provided. The reference to 'active' status is standard. Regulatory compliance is presumed but not explicitly detailed.

The description of the project is quite clear, outlining the scope of works, site details, and the type of contract. Requirements are documented, although specific award criteria are not detailed within the provided text, deferring to published tender documents. The conditions for participation are implied through eligibility requirements.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and CPV. However, the AI-extracted requirements note that specific financial requirements are not mentioned in the text, and the total number of tender documents is listed as 4 with no content/summaries provided. This significantly hinders a full assessment of completeness.

The tender appears fair, offering free access to documents via a provided link and using a common e-procurement platform. The value is disclosed, and the procedure (competitive flexible) aims for competition. There are no immediately obvious requirements tailored to specific companies. The deadlines seem reasonable within the context of a large project.

E-submission is facilitated through a provided URL. The contract duration and start date are specified. Financing information is not detailed in the provided text, which is a common omission in tender summaries but crucial for practical assessment. The URL for submission is provided.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, estimated value, and dates are populated. There are no indications of suspension or disputes. The dates provided (tender date vs. submission deadline) have a large gap, suggesting a potential inconsistency or error in the data presented for review, though the contract start date aligns with the submission deadline.

The tender does not explicitly mention green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. There is no indication that it is EU-funded. This category scores low due to the lack of any discernible sustainability focus in the provided information.