CCTV Monitoring and Associated Security Services

This preliminary market engagement notice provides a clear scope of required security services but suffers from significant omissions in procedural classification and transparency, impacting its overall quality.

The notice fails to clearly define its 'Type' and 'Procedure', which is a fundamental legal omission even for a preliminary market engagement. While CPV codes are correct and deadlines reasonable for PME, this lack of procedural clarity is a concern.

The description of required security services is exceptionally clear and detailed, covering both core and ad-hoc tasks. The AI-extracted requirements accurately reflect this clarity.

While basic information, deadlines, and duration are present, the notice is incomplete regarding the 'Liable Person', 'Type', and 'Procedure'. The estimated value is classified, reducing overall completeness.

The requirements are generic and not tailored, promoting fair competition. However, the classified estimated value and the absence of electronic submission reduce overall transparency and equal access for potential providers.

The lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. While contract duration and start date are clear, the classified value also impacts practical assessment for interested parties.

Several key fields, including 'Liable Person', 'Type', 'Procedure', and 'Estimated Value', are unpopulated or classified, indicating poor data consistency across the notice. Dates are logical.

The tender notice completely lacks any mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, indicating no focus on sustainability criteria.