Aids and Adaptations to Guildford Borough Council Properties

This tender provides a clear description of the required works but suffers from critical omissions regarding evaluation criteria, financial requirements, and mandatory exclusion grounds, alongside a history of a previously abandoned tender.

The procedure type and CPV code are adequately defined. However, the absence of a clear tender reveal date, the lack of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds (as per AI summary), and the empty 'Liable Person' and procedure code fields are minor compliance gaps. The fact that this is a reiteration of a previously abandoned tender (GBC – 038762) in December 2025 raises concerns about the robustness of the prior procurement process, which could have legal implications if not properly addressed.

The description of the required works is clear and unambiguous. However, the tender documentation, as presented, lacks crucial details such as explicit evaluation criteria, specific financial requirements, and mandatory exclusion grounds, which are essential for bidders to fully understand the tender's scope and assessment process.

Basic information like title, organization, value, and duration are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of specified evaluation criteria, detailed financial requirements, mandatory exclusion grounds, and the 'Liable Person' field. These omissions represent significant gaps in the tender documentation.

While the tender value is disclosed and requirements appear generic, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises transparency and objectivity, making it difficult for bidders to prepare competitive proposals. The lack of electronic submission also presents a barrier to equal access for all potential suppliers.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, contributing positively to practicality. However, the absence of electronic submission capabilities is a significant practical drawback for potential bidders, potentially increasing administrative burden and limiting participation.

Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no formal disputes. However, the presence of empty fields such as 'Liable Person' and procedure codes, along with the history of a previously abandoned tender, indicates minor inconsistencies in data provision and process stability.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. There is no indication of EU funding, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value considerations.