Garden of Remembrance Development

This tender presents significant transparency and accessibility challenges due to the requirement to request documents from a third party and the absence of evaluation criteria, despite clear basic project information. Its practicality and fairness are notably compromised, and sustainability considerations are entirely lacking.

The tender defines the procedure type and assigns CPV codes correctly. The submission deadline provides reasonable time for preparation. However, the absence of specific mandatory exclusion grounds and evaluation criteria, along with a missing 'reveal date', are notable deficiencies that impact full compliance with best practice disclosure.

The project description and AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly reduces clarity for potential bidders. The 'Divided into Parts' characteristic is also mentioned but not elaborated.

Basic information such as title, organization, value, and deadlines are present. However, the tender is critically incomplete as the actual tender documentation (Schedule of Works, drawings, Form of Tender) is not directly attached or accessible, requiring a request from a third party. Mandatory exclusion grounds and evaluation criteria are also missing.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the lack of direct document access, requiring contact with a third-party consultant (David B Limited), which creates an unnecessary barrier. The absence of specified evaluation criteria and the lack of e-submission further hinder transparency and equal access for all potential bidders. The 'UK-based contractor' requirement, while potentially permissible for a local below-threshold tender, is restrictive.

The tender is highly impractical due to the absence of electronic submission capabilities and, more critically, the lack of a direct URL or portal for accessing tender documents. Bidders are required to contact a third-party consultant to obtain essential documentation, adding an unnecessary administrative burden.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor omissions include the 'Liable Person' field and procedure codes, but these do not significantly impact overall data consistency.

The tender shows no explicit integration of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. While 'preferably an SME' is a minor positive for local economic development, it does not constitute a formal sustainability criterion.