Project Management Services for GYBC Cremator Plant Replacement & Site Expansion

This tender for Project Management services is significantly hampered by critical deficiencies including an incorrect CPV code, the complete absence of evaluation criteria, and the failure to access key tender documents. While the project description is clear, these fundamental flaws severely impact legal compliance, clarity, completeness, and fairness for potential bidders.

The tender suffers from a critical legal compliance issue due to the incorrect CPV code (42350000 for Cremators instead of a services code for Project Management). Furthermore, the explicit lack of evaluation criteria and non-explicit mandatory exclusion grounds are significant compliance risks, despite the procedure being below threshold.

While the project description and the nature of the required Project Management services are clear, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a major clarity issue for bidders. The failure to access 3 out of 5 tender documents also severely hinders overall clarity, as essential details are likely contained within them.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, and duration is present. However, the tender is critically incomplete due to the failure to access 3 out of 5 key documents and the explicit absence of evaluation criteria. Mandatory exclusion grounds are also not explicitly detailed in the provided information.

Fairness is severely compromised by the complete absence of evaluation criteria, making it impossible for bidders to understand how their proposals will be judged. The failure to access 3 out of 5 key documents also creates an unequal playing field. The lack of e-submission further reduces equal access for potential bidders.

The tender lacks practicality due to the absence of electronic submission, which is a significant drawback in modern procurement. The failure to access 3 out of 5 key documents also creates substantial practical hurdles for potential bidders in preparing their submissions. While contract start and duration are clear, these core issues are critical.

Most key fields are populated and dates are logical. However, there is a significant inconsistency with the CPV code, which is for goods (Cremators) rather than services (Project Management). A minor discrepancy exists between the EUR and GBP estimated values. The 'Divided into Parts' characteristic is also slightly ambiguous given the description of a single PM tender.

The tender shows no explicit focus on sustainability, lacking any mention of green procurement criteria, social aspects, or innovation. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value considerations into the procurement process.