Key Holding, Property Inspections and First Responder Services

This tender demonstrates good foundational information and clear service requirements but suffers from critical omissions regarding evaluation criteria and the lack of electronic submission, impacting fairness and practicality.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly. The submission deadline provides sufficient time from today's date. However, the 'Missing reveal date' is a transparency concern, and the explicit mention of mandatory exclusion grounds is not detailed in the provided summary, which could be a compliance gap if not fully addressed in the complete tender documents.

The description of services and AI-extracted requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly reduces the clarity of the bidding process for potential suppliers.

Most essential information such as title, organization, reference, value, duration, and location is provided. The tender documents are listed. Nevertheless, the crucial omission of evaluation criteria makes the tender incomplete from a bidder's perspective.

The tender discloses the estimated value and the requirements (SIA accreditation) appear standard for the service, not tailored. The division into parts (Lots) can enhance competition. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises transparency and objectivity, making the process potentially unfair. The absence of e-submission also limits equal access.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, and financing information is available. A significant practical drawback is the lack of electronic submission, which is a standard expectation in modern procurement and can create unnecessary administrative burden for bidders.

Key fields are consistently populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical. A minor inconsistency exists between the stated 24-month duration and a 'potential four-year contract' mentioned in one document summary, but the primary timeline is clear.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.