33kV Substation SCADA Supply

This tender provides a clear technical description but suffers from significant gaps in evaluation criteria, e-submission capabilities, and sustainability considerations. Several critical pieces of information are missing, impacting overall quality and fairness.

Legal compliance is moderate due to the absence of a reveal date, explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds, and specified evaluation criteria. The 'Required: No' status for all listed tender documents is also a significant compliance risk, as it's unclear if all necessary bidding documents are properly designated for bidder review.

The technical description of the SCADA system and its requirements is exceptionally clear and detailed. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria significantly diminishes the overall clarity for potential bidders regarding how their proposals will be assessed.

While basic information, value, and duration are present, the tender is incomplete regarding critical elements such as evaluation criteria, explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, and specific financial requirements for bidders. The 'Required: No' status for all listed documents also raises concerns about the completeness of the tender package itself.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the complete lack of evaluation criteria, which prevents objective and transparent assessment. The absence of e-submission capabilities creates barriers to equal access, and the 28-day submission period for a complex SCADA project may be tight for comprehensive bid preparation.

The practicality of the tender is notably reduced by the lack of electronic submission support, which is a significant hurdle in modern procurement. While contract start date, duration, and estimated value are clear, the absence of e-submission impacts efficiency and accessibility.

The core data fields such as title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, and CPV code are consistently populated and logical. Minor inconsistencies include empty fields for 'Liable Person', 'Type (Code)', and 'Procedure (Code)'.

The tender scores low on sustainability as it explicitly lacks any mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.