Emergency Repairs Services Outside Working Hours

Overall, the tender documentation provides a clear service description, but significant deficiencies exist in the absence of evaluation criteria and electronic submission, impacting transparency and fairness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly. However, the missing tender reveal date makes it impossible to assess the full legal compliance regarding publication timelines. The 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the stated estimated value, which is a transparency concern.

The service description and AI-extracted technical requirements are clear and unambiguous, detailing the scope, hours, and response times. A major drawback is the explicit absence of specified evaluation criteria, which significantly reduces overall clarity for bidders.

Basic information, deadlines, value, duration, and location are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of evaluation criteria and the failure to download one of the listed tender documents ('Lot L-1').

The requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the lack of explicit evaluation criteria, the absence of electronic submission, the contradictory value classification, and incomplete document access significantly undermine the fairness and transparency of the process.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical hurdle in modern procurement. The failed download of one document also poses a practical challenge for bidders.

Dates are logical and consistent. However, there are minor inconsistencies such as missing codes for the procedure type, an empty 'Liable Person' field, and the contradictory 'Value Classified: Yes' despite the estimated value being provided.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.