Enajenación de veintiocho aprovechamientos forestales en la provincia de Palencia.

✓Concerning the scope of the contract (what, how much, where, when), the contract covers 28 separate timber harvesting lots on named public forest tracts in Palencia (Spain).

✓Each lot description specifies: the forest number and name (such as “El Soto”, “El Corco y Los Canónigos”, “La Cerra”, “El Cerrillo”, “Majada y Valle de las Fuentes”, “Bostal y Albarizas”, “Consorcio Laderas de Valdeolmillos”, “Moyuelo”, “Carrasco, Matalavilla y Roturos”), the municipality (e.g.

✓Fresno del Río, Poza de la Vega, Villota del Páramo, Buenavista de Valdavia, Pino del Río, Villaeles de Valdavia, Valdeolmillos, Olmos de Ojeda, Ledigos), the surface in hectares, and an estimated timber volume (in m³ or tonnes).

✓For instance, Lote 2 involves 512 t on 20.08 ha, Lote 4 involves 3,309 m³ on 88.16 ha, Lote 25 involves 1,514 m³ on 48.1 ha, and Lote 28 involves 3,400 t on 119.24 ha.

✓Each lot also has its own estimated contract value and base bid budget (for example, Lote 28 has an estimated value of 47,600 EUR and base bid of 53,312 EUR; Lote 25 has 33,308 EUR estimated and 37,304.96 EUR base bid).

✓The place of performance for all lots is the province of Palencia (ES414), with precise boundaries shown on attached PDF plans grouped by lot ranges (1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, 21–28).

✓The overall execution period is 18 months, but the PPT specifies per-lot completion periods of 12 or 18 months.

✓As for award criteria and weighting, the procedure is conducted with a single award criterion.

✓The tender explicitly states “procedimiento abierto con un único criterio de adjudicación” and that the adjudication is based on “criterios evaluables mediante aplicación de fórmulas” with the sole criterion being the price offered by the bidder.

✓Unusually for many tenders, here the “Precio más alto” is sought, as this is the sale of timber: the higher the price a bidder offers to pay for the wood, the better.

✓The weighting is 100% for the price criterion, with a formula: Puntuación = (Oferta(i) / Oferta(máx)) x 100, where Oferta(i) is the bidder’s offer and Oferta(máx) is the highest offer presented for the lot.

✓There is no electronic auction phase (subasta electrónica: no), and no EU funding involved.

✓The validity period of offers is set at 2 months.

✓Regarding risks and special conditions, the tender sets both provisional and definitive guarantees and limits on subcontracting.

✓For example, for at least some lots (explicitly for Lote 28, and generally by reference to clause 9 PCAP for all), there is a provisional guarantee of 3% of the bid base, to be constituted within 26 days, and a definitive guarantee of 5%, to be posted within 10 days after award.

✓Bidders must provide “justificante de haber constituido la garantía provisional” for each lot, which is a participation requirement.

❓Subcontracting is permitted but restricted: it is allowed within the limitations of clause 21.2 of the PCAP, which presumably restricts the volume or type of work that can be subcontracted.

✓The opening of envelope 1 (administrative documents) and envelope 2 (economic offers) is private acts, programmed respectively for 01/12/2026 (10:00) and 10/12/2026 (09:00), with offer submission and pliego download deadlines on 23/11/2026 at 23:59 via PLACSP.

✓No costs for advertising are charged to bidders (importe máximo gastos de publicidad: 0 EUR).

❓The question deadline is not directly stated in the excerpt; instead, it refers to “Observaciones: Los establecidos en el PCAP” for appeal deadlines and possibly other procedural timings.

✓As for contradictions or corrections, the excerpts are largely replicated across multiple PDF and TXT references (01-placsp-3, 02-placsp-6, 08-placsp-12, 09-placsp-13, etc.) and show consistent values and formulations, often duplicated verbatim.

✓The tender clearly sets Spain/Palencia as the sole place of performance and confirms the classification as CPV 03414000 (Madera en bruto) and 77211400 (Servicios de tala de árboles) across all documents.

✓The only apparent “difference” is between the announcement of licitation and the “documento de pliegos” entries, but these are complementary (one is the notice, the other hosts the PCAP and PPT and plans).

✓There are no explicit corrections or contradictory statements noted in the text; whenever a procedural detail (such as deadlines for appeals or precise subcontracting limits) is not detailed in the notice, the documents consistently refer back to the PCAP and PPT as the binding source.

❓Therefore, where there is any doubt (such as exact penalties or detailed solvency thresholds), the statements in the pliego de cláusulas administrativas particulares (PCAP) and the pliego de prescripciones técnicas (PPT) apply as the governing documents.