Procurement for EWS Remediation Works at Tram House and Hornbeam House (Wandle Housing Association)

This tender provides a clear description of the required works and key financial details, but suffers from significant gaps in transparency, particularly the absence of evaluation criteria and full document content. Practicality is also hampered by the lack of explicit e-submission support.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and no disputes are noted. The deadline from today's date is reasonable. However, the absence of a reveal date and, more critically, the lack of specified evaluation criteria are notable compliance shortcomings for a public procurement process.

The description of the EWS remediation works and the AI-extracted requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly reduces the overall clarity, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. Full scope details are referenced externally.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, duration, and location are provided. However, the tender lacks complete definition of evaluation criteria, and the full specification documents are not comprehensively processed or summarized within the provided content, impacting overall completeness.

The estimated value is disclosed, and requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises the fairness and transparency of the procurement process, as bidders cannot objectively prepare their submissions. The flagged 'No e-submission' also raises concerns about equal access.

The contract start date, duration, and financing information are clearly specified. However, the automated check flags 'No e-submission', which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. While 'ProContract' is mentioned, a direct document URL is not provided.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes. However, minor inconsistencies exist, such as the empty 'Liable Person' field, missing codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure', and a slight contradiction between 'Value Classified: Yes' and the clearly disclosed budget range.

This tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. While the works involve replacing combustible materials for safety, this is not framed as an environmental sustainability measure. The tender is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.