East Cliff Stabilisation Works

This tender for East Cliff Stabilisation Works provides clear project details and a reasonable submission timeline, but is significantly hampered by the absence of specified evaluation criteria and a lack of e-submission, impacting fairness and transparency.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and no disputes are reported. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria and the missing tender reveal date are significant compliance weaknesses. While 'MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS' are mentioned, their lack of detail in the summary is also a concern.

The description of the engineering works is clear and unambiguous. However, the overall clarity is significantly reduced by the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria. The AI-extracted requirements are also vague, mentioning 'MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS' without providing any details, which creates ambiguity.

Basic information such as title, organization, reference, estimated value, duration, and location (NUTS code) are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of detailed requirements and, most critically, specified evaluation criteria. Only one of the four listed documents has a content summary, suggesting a lack of full documentation in the provided analysis.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the project description appears generic, not tailored to a specific company. The submission deadline provides reasonable time for preparation. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises the objectivity and transparency of the evaluation process. Furthermore, the lack of e-submission creates an unequal access barrier for potential bidders in a modern procurement context.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, providing a good timeline for planning. However, the lack of electronic submission (e-submission) is a significant practical drawback for bidders, hindering efficiency and accessibility in 2026.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include the 'Liable Person' field being empty and the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag appearing alongside a disclosed estimated value.

The tender notice completely lacks any mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles into the procurement process.