Supply and Installation of a Footbridge

This tender provides clear basic information and technical requirements but suffers from significant gaps in detailed evaluation criteria and lacks modern e-submission capabilities, impacting transparency and fairness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and no disputes are noted. However, the absence of a reveal date makes it difficult to fully assess the reasonableness of the preparation period, and the lack of specified detailed evaluation criteria is a significant compliance gap regarding transparency requirements.

The description of the footbridge and its load capacity is clear. However, the tender lacks specific details for eligibility and mandatory exclusion grounds, and critically, the specific criteria for evaluating the 60% quality component are not provided, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be judged. The mention of 'Divided into Parts' without further explanation also reduces clarity.

While basic information like title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are present, the tender is incomplete regarding detailed evaluation criteria for quality, specific eligibility requirements, and mandatory exclusion grounds. The discrepancy in the estimated value (EUR 114,000 vs. £95,000 in the document summary) also indicates a completeness issue in consistent information provision.

The absence of detailed quality evaluation criteria significantly compromises the objectivity and transparency of the evaluation process, hindering fair competition. Furthermore, the lack of e-submission capabilities creates a barrier to equal access and participation for potential bidders, which is a major fairness concern. Technical requirements appear generic and not tailored.

The tender's practicality is severely hampered by the lack of electronic submission support, which is a fundamental expectation in modern procurement. While the contract start date and duration are clearly specified, the absence of e-submission creates unnecessary administrative burden for bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, a significant inconsistency exists in the estimated value, stated as EUR 114,000 in the main information but £95,000 in the document summary. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty, and procedure codes are marked N/A.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement criteria, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value considerations into the procurement process.