Lighthouse Centre Evaluation

This tender presents significant quality concerns, primarily due to the absence of evaluation criteria, an incorrect CPV code, and a lack of e-submission, which collectively undermine legal compliance, clarity, and fairness.

The tender exhibits critical legal compliance issues, including the misclassification of the CPV code (Statutory audit services for an evaluation service), the absence of mandatory exclusion grounds, and the lack of specified evaluation criteria, which are fundamental for a legally sound procurement process.

While the project description and technical requirements are clearly articulated, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria creates significant ambiguity for potential bidders regarding how their proposals will be assessed, hindering overall clarity.

Several key pieces of information are missing or insufficiently detailed, most notably the evaluation criteria, the liable person, and specifics regarding how the tender is 'divided into parts'. There's also a minor inconsistency in the estimated value currency.

The absence of transparent evaluation criteria severely compromises fairness, making it impossible for bidders to understand the basis of assessment. The lack of e-submission and highly specialized requirements also raise concerns about equal access and potential tailoring.

The lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially complicating the bidding process for many suppliers. While other practical details like contract start and duration are clear, this omission impacts efficiency.

The tender exhibits several data inconsistencies, including the misclassified CPV code, the differing currencies for the estimated value (EUR vs GBP), and missing key fields like the liable person, indicating a lack of thorough data review.

The tender explicitly includes 'Social Criteria' and addresses a critical social issue (child sexual abuse support), which is a strong positive for social sustainability. However, it lacks explicit focus on environmental or innovation aspects.