Legal Compliance65/100
The tender explicitly states adherence to the Procurement Act 2023 and Regulations 2024, and correctly identifies the procedure type and CPV code. However, the absence of evaluation criteria in the provided information is a significant transparency and fairness concern that could lead to legal challenges if not fully detailed in the complete tender documents.
•Missing evaluation criteria in provided information
Clarity65/100
While the general description and key dates are clear, the AI-extracted requirements explicitly highlight the absence of specific technical capability, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria. This lack of detail in critical areas significantly reduces the overall clarity for potential bidders.
•No specific technical capability requirements detailed
•No specific financial requirements detailed
Completeness55/100
Basic information, estimated value, and contract duration are well-defined. However, the full tender documentation is not directly provided, and crucial elements such as detailed technical, financial, and evaluation criteria are explicitly missing from the available content, making the tender incomplete for a thorough assessment.
•Full tender documentation not directly provided (only a notice and URL)
•Missing detailed technical requirements
Fairness55/100
The tender discloses the estimated value and supports e-procurement, which are positive for fairness. However, the absence of evaluation criteria and the extremely short timeframe for bid preparation after the deadline to obtain documents (Feb 10th to Feb 11th) severely limit fair competition and transparency.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Impractical timeframe for bid preparation after document access
Practicality45/100
The tender provides a document URL, supports electronic submission, and specifies key dates and contract duration. Nevertheless, the extremely narrow window between the deadline to obtain documents (Feb 10th) and the submission deadline (Feb 11th) makes the bidding process highly impractical for suppliers.
•Impractical timeframe for bid preparation after document access
Data Consistency90/100
The tender information is largely consistent, with logical dates and populated key fields. Minor omissions include the 'Liable Person' and 'Code: N/A' for procedure type, but these do not impact overall data integrity.
Sustainability50/100
The tender does not include any explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•No green procurement focus
•No social criteria