Automatic Door Servicing, Maintenance and Reactive Repair

This tender for automatic door services provides clear service requirements but suffers from significant data inconsistencies and a critical lack of specified evaluation criteria, impacting clarity, completeness, and fairness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes appropriately. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and, more critically, evaluation criteria in the provided information raises concerns regarding full compliance with transparency requirements. The missing reveal date also hinders a full assessment of the submission period's reasonableness.

The description of the required services, technical capabilities, and SLA is generally clear. However, conflicting information regarding the submission deadline, contract duration, and contract start date, coupled with the complete absence of evaluation criteria, creates significant ambiguity for potential bidders.

While basic information like title, organization, value, and location is present, the tender is incomplete due to the lack of full tender documents (only a notice summary is provided), explicit evaluation criteria, and specific financial requirements for bidders.

The tender benefits from a disclosed value and the use of an e-procurement system, promoting equal access. The ADSA approval requirement, while specific, is likely justified for quality assurance. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria severely undermines the transparency and objectivity of the award process, making it difficult for bidders to prepare competitive proposals.

The tender supports electronic submission and provides a clear URL for the e-tendering system, which is practical. Nevertheless, the conflicting information regarding the contract start date and duration, as well as the limited detail on financing beyond the estimated value, could create practical challenges for bidders.

This category presents significant issues. There are direct contradictions between the structured data and the descriptive text concerning the submission deadline (Feb 9 vs. Feb 14), contract duration (60 months vs. 2+3 years), and contract start date (fixed date vs. 'to be advised later'). These inconsistencies are highly problematic and confusing.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social responsibility, or innovation-focused criteria. It is also not EU-funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards.