Retrofit Consultancy & Principal Designer Services Framework

This tender outlines a clear two-stage competitive flexible procedure for a significant framework, demonstrating good legal compliance and data consistency. However, it has notable gaps in detailed evaluation criteria, lacks electronic submission, and does not explicitly integrate sustainability aspects.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type (Open, Competitive flexible procedure) and correctly assigns the CPV code. There are no reported disputes or suspensions, and the timeline for the CPQ stage appears reasonable. The reference to a national 'Act' suggests compliance with local regulations. The main minor issue is the missing explicit reveal date.

The description of the two-stage procurement process (CPQ then ITT) and the shortlisting mechanism (top 5, with 1-point discretion) is very clear and unambiguous. AI-extracted requirements are also clear based on the provided text. The primary clarity concern is the absence of detailed scoring criteria for the 'scored submissions' within the CPQ, which impacts understanding of how bids will be truly evaluated.

The tender provides all basic information including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and deadlines. All listed documents are available and summarized. However, a significant gap is the lack of detailed evaluation criteria and weightings for the 'scored submissions' in the CPQ, which is crucial for bidders to prepare comprehensive responses.

The tender's estimated value is disclosed, and requirements appear generic, not tailored to a specific company. The shortlisting process is transparently described. However, the absence of detailed evaluation criteria for the CPQ could reduce transparency and perceived objectivity. The lack of electronic submission also presents a barrier to equal access and efficiency for all potential bidders.

Key practical information such as contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the tender explicitly lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, increasing administrative burden for both bidders and the contracting authority.

Most critical data fields are populated and consistent, including title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, CPV, and NUTS code. Dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include empty fields for 'Liable Person' and specific procedure codes, and the missing explicit reveal date.

The tender does not explicitly include green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus in its stated criteria. While 'Retrofit Consultancy' services can inherently contribute to sustainability, the absence of explicit criteria means these aspects are not formally evaluated or encouraged within the procurement process.