Supply, Installation, and Maintenance of CCTV System

This tender provides a clear technical description but is significantly hampered by missing critical documents, the absence of evaluation criteria, and highly restrictive eligibility requirements, leading to concerns about completeness and fairness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and the submission period is reasonable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria is a significant legal compliance issue, impacting transparency and equal treatment. The eligibility requirements for UK-based SMEs/VCSEs with a preferred North East presence, while potentially permissible for below-threshold contracts under national rules, are restrictive.

The general description of the required CCTV system and its features (IP-based, ANPR, enhanced coverage) is clear. However, the overall clarity is significantly reduced by the absence of specified evaluation criteria and the need to request crucial documents like plans and Schedule 1, which are not readily accessible.

While basic administrative and financial information, duration, and contract start date are provided, the tender is critically incomplete due to the absence of key technical documents (plans, Schedule 1) and, most importantly, the lack of specified evaluation criteria. Two listed documents are also unavailable.

Fairness is severely compromised by the lack of evaluation criteria, which prevents objective assessment. The requirement for UK-based SMEs/VCSEs with a preferred North East presence is highly restrictive, limiting competition. Furthermore, the need to request plans and the absence of e-submission create barriers to equal access and transparency.

The tender's practicality is diminished by the lack of electronic submission, which is a standard expectation in modern procurement. The requirement for prospective tenderers to actively request plans and the unavailability of some listed documents also add unnecessary administrative burden.

The tender generally exhibits good data consistency with logical dates and populated key fields. Minor inconsistencies include empty fields for 'Liable Person' and specific codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure'. There are no reported disputes or suspensions.

The tender shows a very low focus on sustainability. There are no explicit criteria for green procurement, social aspects (beyond the restrictive local/SME preference), or innovation. It is not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.