Retrofit Consultancy & Principal Designer services

This tender outlines a standard two-stage competitive procedure for retrofit consultancy services, but critical gaps exist in evaluation criteria and e-submission capabilities, alongside a lack of sustainability focus.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, defining an open competitive procedure and using an appropriate CPV code. The 29-day submission period for the PSQ stage is reasonable. However, the absence of specific procedure codes and the 'Missing reveal date' are minor transparency issues, and the summary lacks explicit detail on mandatory exclusion grounds.

The two-stage procurement process (PSQ to ITT) and shortlisting mechanism are clearly described. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria for the PSQ stage significantly hinders clarity for potential bidders, making it difficult to understand how 'scored submissions' will be assessed.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, and duration are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the lack of specific financial requirements in the AI-extracted summary and, most significantly, the absence of defined evaluation criteria for the PSQ stage. Minor discrepancies in value and duration between the basic info and document summary also affect completeness.

The lack of specified evaluation criteria for the PSQ stage is a major fairness concern, as bidders cannot objectively prepare their submissions. Additionally, the absence of an e-submission option creates an unnecessary barrier to equal access and participation, which is a significant drawback in modern procurement.

The tender's practicality is significantly hampered by the absence of an electronic submission system, which is a standard expectation for efficient procurement. While the contract start date and duration are clear, the lack of e-submission creates an unnecessary administrative burden for bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical and consistent. However, there are minor inconsistencies in the estimated value (EUR vs GBP equivalent) and contract duration (36 months vs 3-5 years) between the basic information and the document summary, which should be rectified.

The tender completely lacks any mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. Given the nature of 'Retrofit Consultancy' services, which inherently involve environmental improvements, this represents a significant missed opportunity to integrate sustainability criteria.