Play Area

This tender exhibits significant deficiencies in completeness, fairness, and data consistency, primarily due to missing evaluation criteria, inaccessible bidding documents, and a critical financial value discrepancy. While basic information is present, these fundamental flaws severely undermine the quality and transparency of the procurement process.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and there are no disputes. However, the absence of a tender reveal date, the critical omission of evaluation criteria, and a significant inconsistency in the estimated value (EUR 120,000 vs. GBP 100,000) represent substantial legal and transparency compliance issues for an open procedure.

The description of the play area and the AI-extracted requirements are generally clear and unambiguous. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria and the financial value inconsistency severely hinder bidders' understanding of how proposals will be assessed and the true scope of the budget, significantly impacting overall clarity.

While basic information like title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, duration, and location are provided, the tender is critically incomplete. The 'Bidding Documents' (Attachment A-11154) are inaccessible due to an error page, and evaluation criteria are entirely missing. The absence of a reveal date also contributes to incompleteness.

Fairness is severely compromised. The complete lack of evaluation criteria, the inaccessibility of critical bidding documents, and the absence of electronic submission create significant barriers to equal access and transparency. The inconsistency in the estimated contract value further creates an unfair bidding environment, although requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company.

The tender's practicality is low due to the lack of electronic submission, which is a significant drawback in modern procurement. Furthermore, the error page for 'Bidding Documents' makes it practically impossible for bidders to access essential information required for proposal preparation.

Data consistency is critically flawed due to a major discrepancy in the estimated contract value, stated as EUR 120,000 in the basic information and £100,000 in the Official PDF. While dates are logical and most key fields are populated (except 'Liable Person'), this financial inconsistency is a severe data integrity issue.

The tender shows no explicit focus on sustainability. There are no green procurement criteria, social aspects, or innovation requirements mentioned. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.