Multi-Disciplinary Consultants Team

This tender for multi-disciplinary consultancy services exhibits significant deficiencies in legal compliance, clarity, and fairness due to missing critical information such as evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and the tender reveal date. While basic information is present, the lack of detail and modern procurement features hinders its overall quality.

The tender lacks crucial legal elements, specifically the tender reveal date, which makes it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the publication period. Furthermore, mandatory exclusion grounds are not explicitly stated, and the absence of evaluation criteria is a significant legal flaw. The procedure type and CPV code are correctly identified.

The general description is understandable, but the complete absence of evaluation criteria makes the tender highly unclear regarding how bids will be assessed. The mention of 'Divided into Parts' without further elaboration also introduces ambiguity. Minor inconsistencies in contract duration further detract from clarity.

While basic information like title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are present, critical components are missing. The tender lacks comprehensive evaluation criteria and explicit mandatory exclusion grounds. The limited content summary for the provided documents suggests a lack of detailed documentation.

The absence of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises the fairness and transparency of the procurement process, as bidders cannot understand the basis for assessment. The lack of an e-submission option and the missing tender reveal date also hinder equal access and fair competition. Requirements themselves do not appear tailored.

The tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. A document URL is not provided, making access potentially cumbersome. While the contract start date and duration are specified, the absence of e-submission and direct document access reduces practicality.

Key fields are mostly populated, and dates are logical. However, there are minor inconsistencies, such as the contract duration being stated as 37 months in basic info and 36 months elsewhere, and the estimated value currency differing between EUR and GBP in the document summary. The 'Liable Person' field is empty.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This indicates a complete absence of sustainability considerations.