Visioning Training: Commission to develop and deliver training in using place and design principles

This tender is generally clear and well-structured in its requirements, but it presents significant concerns regarding the lack of e-submission support and the absence of sustainability considerations.

The tender defines its procedure type and CPV code clearly. However, the absence of a reveal date makes it impossible to fully assess the reasonableness of the submission period from publication. Additionally, no specific mandatory exclusion grounds are detailed, and the 'Official PDF Version' is marked as not required, which is unusual for a primary document.

The tender description is clear, and the AI-extracted requirements for eligibility, technical capability, financial, and submission are well-defined and understandable. Evaluation criteria (60% quality, 40% price) are explicitly stated. More detailed performance conditions or KPIs would enhance clarity further.

Basic information like title, organization, value, duration, and location (NUTS code) are present. Requirements and evaluation criteria are defined. However, the 'Official PDF Version' being marked as 'Required: No' is a significant omission for a primary document. Details on how the tender is 'Divided into Parts' are missing, and mandatory exclusion grounds are not specified.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the evaluation criteria (60% quality, 40% price) are objective and transparent. The requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. However, the absence of e-submission is a significant barrier to equal access and participation. The 'Official PDF Version' not being required could also lead to unequal access to critical information.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission support is a major practical drawback, increasing administrative burden for bidders and the contracting authority.

Key dates are logical, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Most key fields are populated. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and N/A codes for procedure type. The automated flag 'No evaluation criteria specified' contradicts the AI-extracted requirements, but the AI-extracted data is more specific and consistent with a well-structured tender.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often implies higher sustainability standards.