Legal Compliance65/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes appropriately. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and specified evaluation criteria represents a notable gap in legal compliance, as these are fundamental requirements for public procurement transparency.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds
•No evaluation criteria specified
Clarity65/100
The description of services, locations, and contract terms is clear. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria significantly diminishes the overall clarity for potential bidders. Furthermore, full clarity is hampered by the frequent reference to external documents (Schedule 1, sections 96-115) which are not provided for analysis.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Reliance on unprovided external documents for full details
Completeness60/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, and duration are present. However, the tender is incomplete due to the missing evaluation criteria and mandatory exclusion grounds. Additionally, only one of four tender documents was provided for analysis, indicating a potential lack of a full tender package in the input.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
Fairness55/100
The value is disclosed, and the lotting strategy (limiting awards to two regional lots per bidder) promotes competition. However, the absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises transparency and objectivity. The lack of an e-submission option also creates a barrier to equal access for all potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No e-submission option
Practicality45/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The absence of a direct document URL also adds an unnecessary hurdle for interested parties.
•No electronic submission supported
•No document URL provided
Data Consistency85/100
Key fields are mostly populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and N/A codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure'. The difference between the estimated EUR value and the initial GBP contract value is interpretable as total potential vs. initial term.
•'Liable Person' field is empty
•'Type' and 'Procedure' codes are N/A
Sustainability25/100
The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public policy objectives into the procurement process.
•No green procurement criteria
•No social criteria