Legal Compliance65/100
The tender defines its procedure type and CPV code appropriately. The submission window of 19 days from today's date is generally reasonable for a below-threshold RFQ. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria is a significant legal transparency requirement for open competitions. The 'Required: No' status for the main PDF document raises concerns about full legal disclosure.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Ambiguous document access ('Required: No' for PDF)
Clarity55/100
The description of the program, its objectives, and the division into Lots is clear and understandable. However, the tender significantly lacks clarity regarding how bids will be evaluated, as no evaluation criteria are specified. Detailed supplier requirements are also not explicitly provided in the summary.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Minimal supplier requirements detailed
Completeness50/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, and duration are present. However, the 'Liable Person' field is empty. Crucially, the main tender document (PDF) is marked as 'Required: No,' which is a fundamental flaw if it contains the full terms. The absence of explicit evaluation criteria and detailed supplier requirements also indicates incompleteness.
•'Liable Person' missing
•Main tender document marked 'Required: No'
Fairness45/100
The tender's value is disclosed, and the service requirements appear generic, not tailored. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises fairness, as bidders cannot understand the basis for award. The submission via email rather than a formal e-procurement platform may also present challenges for equal access and auditability. The ambiguous access to the full tender document ('Required: No' for PDF) is also a concern.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Email-only submission (not e-procurement platform)
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission via email is supported, and key dates (contract start, duration) and financing information are clearly stated. However, the absence of a direct URL for the tender documents makes access less straightforward than ideal. Email submission, while functional, lacks the structured benefits of a dedicated e-procurement portal.
•No direct document URL
•Email-only submission (not e-procurement platform)
Data Consistency40/100
The tender exhibits several inconsistencies. The estimated value is stated as 70,000.00 EUR in the basic information but £70,000 in the description, which is a significant currency discrepancy. The 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the fact that the value is disclosed. The 'Required: No' status for the main PDF document is also highly inconsistent with a functional tender process. The 'Liable Person' field is unpopulated.
•Currency inconsistency (EUR vs GBP)
•Contradictory 'Value Classified' status
Sustainability70/100
The tender's core purpose is to address mental health inequalities and improve outcomes for people with Severe Mental Illness, which is a strong social aspect. It also explicitly highlights an 'Innovation Focus.' While it does not specify green procurement criteria or additional social clauses for suppliers, its inherent nature contributes positively to sustainability.
•No explicit green procurement criteria