PLACE822H Supply and Lay of Bond Coat

This tender presents a clear description of the required services and contract terms, but suffers from significant gaps in critical information such as evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and specific financial requirements, which severely impact clarity, completeness, and fairness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code clearly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. There are no reported disputes. However, the summary lacks explicit mention of mandatory exclusion grounds and specific financial requirements, which are standard disclosures, and the reveal date is missing.

The service description and general requirements are clear and understandable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major flaw, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. Detailed performance conditions are also not provided.

Basic tender information, deadlines, value, duration, and location are adequately provided. Nevertheless, the explicit lack of mandatory exclusion grounds, specific financial requirements, and crucially, evaluation criteria, renders the tender information incomplete for bidders to formulate a fully informed and competitive response.

Document access is available, and the requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria significantly undermines transparency and objectivity, raising concerns about the fairness of the selection process. The lack of e-submission also presents a minor barrier to equal access.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission capabilities is a notable practical drawback in modern procurement practices. A direct document URL is not explicitly provided in the summary.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are generally logical. However, there is a notable inconsistency between the 'Characteristics: Divided into Parts' and the description's intention to 'appoint one Contractor.' A minor discrepancy exists in the contract start date (April 5 vs April 6).

The tender information provided does not indicate any specific focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.