bikeability training

This tender for Bikeability training exhibits good clarity in its service description and technical requirements but suffers from critical omissions in legal compliance, completeness, and fairness, primarily due to missing mandatory exclusion/eligibility grounds, a lack of detailed evaluation criteria, and an exceptionally low estimated value of 80 EUR for a 12-month contract.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type and assigns an appropriate CPV code. However, it critically lacks specific mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements, which are fundamental for legal compliance in public procurement. The missing reveal date also prevents a full assessment of the reasonableness of the preparation period.

The description of the Bikeability program and the technical capability requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the tender states evaluation is "100% on quality" without providing any detailed breakdown or sub-criteria for assessing quality, which significantly reduces clarity for potential bidders.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, duration, and location is provided. However, the tender is incomplete regarding mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, financial requirements, and detailed evaluation criteria. The document section also indicates 4 documents but only summarizes one, which is marked as "not required."

The estimated value of 80 EUR for a 12-month training program is exceptionally low and raises significant concerns about the fairness of the competition, strongly suggesting the tender might be tailored for a specific provider or is not a genuine market opportunity. The lack of detailed, objective evaluation criteria for the "100% quality" assessment further compromises transparency and fairness. The absence of e-submission also limits equal access.

The estimated value of 80 EUR for a 12-month service makes this tender highly impractical for any legitimate commercial entity to bid on. While the contract start date and duration are clear, the lack of electronic submission support is a practical drawback for bidders.

Key dates (submission, contract start, duration) are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. While some fields like "Liable Person" are empty and procedure codes are N/A, the core data provided is consistent and free from contradictions.

The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social, or innovation-focused criteria. However, the nature of the service itself (Bikeability training) inherently promotes active transport, health, and road safety, which contribute to social well-being and environmental sustainability indirectly.