Highways Works Framework Stage 1 - Conditions of Participation

This tender for a large-scale highways framework demonstrates good data consistency and a clear scope, but is significantly hampered by the absence of detailed evaluation criteria and a lack of focus on sustainability.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and the 28-day submission period from today's date is generally reasonable for an open procedure. However, the missing 'reveal date' prevents a full assessment of the time between publication and submission, and mandatory exclusion grounds are not detailed in the provided summaries, which are critical for legal compliance.

The description of the scope and the division into lots is clear and unambiguous. AI-extracted requirements are specific regarding capabilities. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly reduces clarity for potential bidders on how their proposals will be assessed.

Basic information, financial details, timeline, classification, and a detailed description of services across lots are provided. Requirements are extracted. However, the tender lacks specific evaluation criteria, detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, and specific financial ratios, which are essential for a comprehensive bid submission.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. The division into multiple lots promotes broader participation. However, the absence of evaluation criteria severely impacts transparency and objectivity, hindering fair competition. The lack of e-submission, if confirmed, also creates an access barrier.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission support (as flagged) is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders. No explicit document URL is provided in the summary.

All key fields are populated, and there are no reported suspensions or disputes. Dates are logical and consistent, and the estimated value conversion between EUR and GBP is accurate. The repetition of the lot description is a minor redundancy but not an inconsistency.

The tender summary and extracted requirements do not indicate any focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.