Gosport People's Park Performance Space

This tender for the Gosport People's Park Performance Space demonstrates moderate quality, providing clear project details and evaluation criteria but suffering from significant omissions regarding mandatory exclusion/eligibility grounds and the lack of electronic submission.

The tender defines the procedure type and assigns an appropriate CPV code. The submission period of 28 days from today's date is generally reasonable for preparation. However, the AI-extracted summary indicates a lack of explicit mandatory exclusion and eligibility grounds, which are fundamental legal requirements. The 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the disclosed estimated value, raising a minor compliance concern.

The project description is clear and unambiguous, and the evaluation criteria (60% quality, 40% price) are well-specified. Technical and financial requirements are also clearly stated. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion and eligibility criteria, as noted by the AI, reduces the overall clarity for potential bidders regarding participation requirements.

Basic information, deadlines, value, duration, and location are provided. Documents are attached and summarized. While evaluation criteria are defined, the significant omission of explicit mandatory exclusion and eligibility grounds makes the tender incomplete in critical regulatory and practical aspects for bidders.

Document access is available, the value is disclosed, and the evaluation criteria are objective and transparent. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the absence of electronic submission (e-submission) is a significant barrier to equal access and fairness in modern procurement, substantially impacting this score.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission is a major practical deficiency, creating unnecessary administrative burden and potentially limiting participation. The absence of a direct document URL is also a minor practical concern, though documents are listed as available.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. However, the 'Liable Person' field is empty, and the 'Type' and 'Procedure' codes are missing. The contradiction between 'Value Classified: Yes' and the explicit disclosure of the estimated value also indicates an inconsistency.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This represents a complete absence of sustainability considerations.