Contract for Voice Entry Systems

This tender exhibits significant deficiencies in clarity, completeness, and data consistency, primarily due to a major discrepancy between the title and scope, and critical omissions of mandatory legal and evaluation criteria. The lack of e-submission further hinders practicality and fairness.

The tender notice fails to provide explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and evaluation criteria, which are fundamental requirements for legal compliance in public procurement. While the procedure type is defined and the preparation time (19 days) is reasonable, the missing reveal date and the CPV code discrepancy (due to title vs. description conflict) pose compliance risks.

A severe clarity issue exists with the tender title 'Contract for Voice Entry Systems' directly contradicting the description and document summary of 'replacement of communal entry doors and frames'. Furthermore, the AI-extracted requirements are generic, and the explicit absence of evaluation criteria makes the tender process opaque.

While basic information like title, reference, organization, and deadlines are present, the tender is critically incomplete due to the absence of mandatory exclusion grounds, explicit financial requirements, and evaluation criteria. The reliance on 'full tender documents' without a direct URL in the notice also indicates a lack of comprehensive information upfront.

The absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly compromises fairness, as bidders cannot objectively understand how their proposals will be assessed. The lack of e-submission and the need to follow instructions to access full documents (rather than a direct link) create unnecessary barriers and reduce equal access.

The tender's practicality is low due to the absence of electronic submission, which is a standard expectation in modern procurement. The lack of a direct URL for tender documents also adds an unnecessary step for potential bidders. While contract dates are clear, these operational shortcomings are significant.

Data consistency is very poor due to fundamental contradictions. The tender title ('Voice Entry Systems') is inconsistent with the description ('communal entry doors and frames'), and there's a discrepancy in the estimated value and currency (£50,000 vs. 60,000 EUR). These issues indicate significant quality control failures.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This indicates a complete lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria.