Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly. However, the 29-day submission period for an open procedure for a high-value, complex concession contract is below standard minimums (e.g., 35 days under PCR 2015), posing a potential compliance risk. The missing reveal date and absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the summary are also noted.
•Submission period potentially shorter than standard minimums for an open procedure of this complexity and value.
•Missing tender reveal date.
Clarity80/100
The project description is exceptionally clear and unambiguous, detailing the scope, funding, and objectives. AI-extracted requirements are well-documented and understandable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly impacts overall clarity for bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
Completeness70/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, and duration are well-specified. Requirements are defined. However, the crucial absence of evaluation criteria and the fact that only one of four tender documents is summarized in the provided content indicate potential gaps in the readily available information.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•Only one of four tender documents summarized in the provided information.
Fairness55/100
The tender discloses its value and the requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company, with the 'cannot win both' rule promoting broader participation. However, the absence of evaluation criteria is a major transparency and fairness issue. The lack of e-submission creates a barrier to equal access, and the tight submission timeframe for a complex concession could disadvantage some bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•No electronic submission (e-submission) supported.
Practicality65/100
Contract start date, duration, and financing information are clearly provided. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders and the contracting authority.
•No electronic submission (e-submission) supported.
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates (submission, contract start, duration) are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include 'N/A' codes for procedure type and the missing reveal date.
•Missing tender reveal date.
•Minor 'N/A' codes for procedure type.
Sustainability80/100
The project is inherently green procurement, focusing on Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. It includes a social aspect by aiming to spread infrastructure across all settlements to meet identified needs. Innovation is implied through the goal to accelerate market commercialisation and seek turnkey solutions, though not explicitly detailed as criteria.
•No explicit innovation criteria.
•No explicit social criteria beyond general access goals.