Legal Compliance75/100
The tender clearly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and there are no reported disputes. However, the AI-extracted requirements explicitly state 'No explicit mandatory exclusion grounds are mentioned in the provided tender information,' which is a significant omission for legal compliance, even for a below-threshold tender.
•No explicit mandatory exclusion grounds mentioned in the provided tender information.
Clarity80/100
The tender description is clear and unambiguous, outlining the purpose of the study. Evaluation criteria (75% quality, 25% cost) are specified. While eligibility requirements are clear, technical capability requirements could benefit from more specific details on expected qualifications or demonstration methods.
•Technical capability requirements could be more specific.
•Performance conditions are not explicitly detailed in the provided summary.
Completeness70/100
Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are all specified. Requirements and evaluation criteria are defined. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the summary indicates a potential gap in completeness. Additionally, the 'Official PDF Version' being marked as 'Required: No' is unusual and could imply incomplete information about the tender structure.
•Potential absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds.
•The 'Official PDF Version' is marked as 'Required: No', which is unusual for an official document.
Fairness85/100
The tender promotes fairness through full document access via the eSourcing portal, disclosed value, and objective evaluation criteria (75% quality, 25% cost). Requirements are generic and not tailored to a specific company, and e-procurement is enabled, ensuring equal access for bidders, including SMEs.
Practicality90/100
Electronic submission is fully supported via the Delta eSourcing portal, and direct URLs are provided for accessing information and responding. The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, contributing to high practicality for potential bidders.
Data Consistency90/100
Key fields are consistently populated, and there are no reported suspensions or disputes. Dates are logical and consistent. Minor discrepancies noted in automated checks (e.g., 'No e-submission' vs. portal links) appear to be issues with the automated check rather than the tender data itself.
Sustainability50/100
The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects (beyond general SME eligibility), or innovation focus. It is not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•No explicit green procurement criteria.
•No explicit social aspects mentioned.