Tenant Satisfaction Surveys

This tender for Tenant Satisfaction Surveys is generally well-structured with essential information, but lacks detailed evaluation criteria and comprehensive substantive documentation in the provided summaries. While directing to an e-sourcing portal, the initial overview could be more complete.

The procedure type and CPV codes are clear, and no disputes are reported. The period from today's date to the submission deadline (24 days) is reasonable. However, the absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds and detailed evaluation criteria beyond percentages is a notable gap for legal compliance.

The service description and high-level requirements are clear and unambiguous. Evaluation weightings (70% quality, 30% price) are specified. However, the lack of detailed evaluation criteria and specific performance conditions in the provided summaries reduces overall clarity.

Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are complete. While documents are listed, their summaries are largely administrative or generic, lacking detailed technical specifications, terms of reference, or full contractual conditions, which are crucial for a complete tender package.

Full document access via the e-sourcing portal, disclosed value, and generic requirements contribute to fairness. Electronic submission is supported. The primary concern for fairness is the absence of detailed evaluation criteria, which could impact transparency and perceived objectivity.

Electronic submission is supported, and key dates (contract start, duration) are clearly specified. However, the limited detail in the provided document summaries means potential bidders must visit the portal for essential practical information, making the initial assessment less practical.

Key fields are mostly populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies like empty code fields or the 'Liable Person' field are not critical.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social aspects, or an innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This is a neutral score reflecting a lack of specific sustainability initiatives.