Lift Maintenance Service

This tender for lift maintenance services provides essential information but suffers from significant gaps in clarity and completeness, particularly regarding the absence of detailed evaluation criteria and specific mandatory exclusion grounds. The lack of e-submission also impacts fairness and practicality.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and there are no reported disputes. The 22-day submission period is reasonable. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria and detailed mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary raises concerns about full transparency and compliance with best practices, even for a below-threshold tender. The missing reveal date also makes it harder to fully assess the initial notice period.

While the basic service description is clear, the AI-extracted requirements are very high-level and lack specific detail. Crucially, the tender explicitly states that evaluation criteria are missing, which severely hinders bidders' ability to understand how their proposals will be assessed and what specific performance conditions are expected.

The tender includes essential basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location. Documents are indicated as available. However, the critical omission of detailed evaluation criteria and specific mandatory exclusion grounds makes the tender incomplete from a comprehensive bidding perspective.

The requirements appear generic and not tailored, which is positive for fairness. The estimated value is disclosed. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly compromises the objectivity and transparency of the evaluation process. Furthermore, the lack of e-submission capabilities creates a barrier to equal access and modern procurement practices.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. A direct document URL is not explicitly provided, which could slightly impede ease of access.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The only minor inconsistency is the "Liable Person" field being empty and the slight ambiguity regarding "Value Classified: Yes" versus "Value disclosed".

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.