5 Year Contract - Parish Handyperson

This tender for a Parish Handyperson contract provides clear service descriptions and basic information but suffers from critical omissions, notably the lack of evaluation criteria and e-submission, impacting fairness and legal compliance.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and there are no disputes. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria is a significant legal compliance issue, as is the missing reveal date which prevents full assessment of submission period reasonableness.

The description of the required work and the AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria and detailed performance conditions significantly reduces the overall clarity for potential bidders.

Basic information such as title, organization, value, deadlines, and duration are provided. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria and the limited provision of tender documents (only one PDF, marked "Required: No") indicate significant incompleteness. The "Divided into Parts" characteristic is also not elaborated.

While the estimated value is disclosed and requirements appear generic, the lack of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, preventing objective assessment of bids. The absence of e-submission also limits equal access, and the missing reveal date hinders verification of reasonable preparation time.

The tender lacks support for electronic submission and does not provide a direct document URL, creating practical barriers for bidders. While contract dates and duration are clear, the process is not optimized for modern procurement practices.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are largely logical and consistent, with no disputes reported. Minor inconsistencies include the "Liable Person" field being empty and a slight discrepancy between "5 years" and "61 months" for contract duration.

The tender does not incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. There is no indication of EU funding, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity for responsible procurement.