Grounds Maintenance Contract 2026-30

Overall, the tender documentation provides clear basic information, but suffers from significant gaps in evaluation criteria and financial requirements within the summary, alongside a critical data inconsistency in one document summary.

Legal compliance is generally good, with a clearly defined procedure type and correctly assigned CPV code. However, the 'Liable Person' is missing, and specific evaluation criteria are not detailed in the summary, which are typically part of full disclosure.

The description and basic requirements are clear. However, the critical absence of specific evaluation criteria and detailed financial requirements in the provided summary significantly reduces overall clarity for potential bidders.

While many basic fields are populated, the summary is incomplete regarding specific financial requirements and evaluation criteria. A major concern is the misattributed summary for 'Document 4', which refers to a completely different tender, indicating a significant processing error.

The tender benefits from disclosed value and enabled e-procurement. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria in the summary is a significant transparency issue, making it difficult for bidders to fully understand how their proposals will be assessed, thus impacting fairness.

The tender supports electronic submission via PCS-Tender and clearly specifies the contract duration and estimated value. While a direct document URL is not provided, the platform name is given, which is generally sufficient.

The most critical issue is the severe data inconsistency where 'Document 4: Tender Notice' summary describes a completely different procurement by other councils for mental health services. This error significantly undermines the reliability of the provided tender information.

The tender information provided does not include any mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability criteria.