SVRP Civils & Marine Works Framework

This tender for Civils & Marine Works presents significant deficiencies in transparency, completeness, and fairness, primarily due to undisclosed value, missing critical legal and financial requirements, and a lack of evaluation criteria.

The tender lacks explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds and specific financial requirements, which are fundamental for legal compliance. The estimated value is classified, and the 33-day submission period for an Open procedure for a complex framework, especially for a utility, is notably short, potentially falling below recommended EU minimums for comprehensive bid preparation.

A major concern is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria, making it impossible for bidders to understand how their proposals will be judged. Furthermore, there is a direct contradiction between the characteristic 'Divided into Parts' and the requirement to appoint a 'single source supplier', creating significant ambiguity regarding the tender's structure.

The tender is incomplete due to the undisclosed estimated value and the absence of full tender documentation (only a contract notice is mentioned). Crucially, mandatory exclusion grounds, specific financial requirements, and all evaluation criteria are missing from the provided information.

Fairness is severely compromised by the undisclosed estimated value and the complete lack of evaluation criteria, which are essential for transparent competition. The requirement for a 'single source supplier' for a framework 'divided into parts' across multiple sites could be seen as overly restrictive or potentially tailored, limiting the pool of eligible bidders. Limited access to comprehensive tender documents further reduces fairness.

While E-Procurement is enabled, which is a positive aspect for submission, the practicality for bidders is hampered by the absence of a contract start date and detailed financing information. The lack of full tender documents also makes practical bid preparation challenging.

Significant inconsistencies exist, notably the contradiction between the tender being 'Divided into Parts' and requiring a 'single source supplier'. The classification of value as 'Yes' while stating 'Over Sum Limit: No' is also confusing. The 'Liable Person' field is empty.

The tender does not include any explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus, indicating a lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria.