Funeral Services

This tender demonstrates good clarity in evaluation criteria and fairness in process, but is significantly hampered by a critical inconsistency in the estimated contract value and some missing details in the provided summaries.

The tender correctly defines the procedure type and CPV code, and no disputes or suspensions are noted. The submission period appears reasonable. However, the provided summaries lack specific details on mandatory exclusion grounds, which is a gap in the readily available information.

The service description is clear, and the evaluation criteria (Price 50%, Quality 40%, Social Value 10%) are very well-defined and transparent. Requirements are categorized and generally understandable. However, a significant discrepancy exists in the estimated value (£300,000 vs 360,000 EUR), which creates confusion.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, duration, and location (NUTS code) are provided. Documents are attached and summarized. However, the summaries do not detail mandatory exclusion grounds, and the estimated value is inconsistent across different sections, indicating a lack of full, consistent detail in the provided overview.

The tender promotes fairness through an open procedure, disclosed value, reasonable preparation time, and objective, transparent evaluation criteria. Electronic submission via a portal ensures equal access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. The value discrepancy could cause minor confusion but does not inherently undermine fairness.

Electronic submission is supported via the ProContract eTendering portal, which is a positive for practicality. The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, a direct URL for documents is not provided in the basic information, requiring bidders to navigate to the portal. Financing information is limited to the estimated value, without details on funding source.

While most key fields are populated and dates are logical, there is a critical inconsistency regarding the estimated contract value, stated as 360,000 EUR in basic information but consistently as £300,000 in AI-extracted requirements and document summaries. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.

The tender explicitly includes social value aspects, accounting for 10% of the evaluation criteria, which is a strong positive for sustainability. However, there is no mention of green procurement initiatives or a focus on innovation. The tender is not EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.