Supply and Installation of a Footbridge

This tender for a footbridge construction provides clear technical specifications but suffers from significant deficiencies in critical areas such as the absence of evaluation criteria, eligibility requirements, and e-submission options.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and the submission period (43 days) is reasonable for a below-threshold open competition. However, the explicit absence of mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and, most critically, evaluation criteria, represents a significant legal compliance gap regarding transparency and equal treatment.

The technical description of the footbridge (dimensions, load capacity, ramps) is clear and unambiguous. However, the overall clarity is severely hampered by the explicit lack of specified mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria, making it difficult for bidders to understand the full scope of requirements and assessment methodology.

Basic information such as title, organization, reference, value, duration, and key dates are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the explicit absence of crucial details like mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria, which are fundamental for a comprehensive tender package. The mention of 4 total documents with only 1 summarized also suggests potential incompleteness.

The technical requirements appear generic and not tailored, and the submission deadline provides reasonable time for preparation. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria introduces significant subjectivity and undermines transparency, making the process potentially unfair. The lack of e-submission also creates barriers to equal access for all potential bidders.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, which aids planning. However, the tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. A direct document URL is also not explicitly provided in the tender information.

Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Most key fields are populated. A minor inconsistency exists between the estimated value in EUR (114,000.00) and the PDF summary in GBP (£95,000), which should be clarified. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.

The tender shows no indication of incorporating green procurement principles, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to promote broader public policy objectives.