Legal Compliance60/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code appropriately, and no disputes are noted. However, the explicit absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and evaluation criteria in the provided text represents a significant legal compliance deficiency, as these are fundamental requirements for transparent public procurement.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided text.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
Clarity65/100
The service description is clear and the technical requirements are understandable. However, the lack of explicit evaluation criteria and financial requirements in the provided text significantly reduces overall clarity for potential bidders, requiring them to seek critical information elsewhere.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•Financial requirements not explicitly stated in the provided text.
Completeness60/100
Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are present. However, the tender is incomplete regarding financial requirements and, crucially, evaluation criteria. The reference to an 'ITT Pack' and external portals for 'full details' suggests the provided content is not comprehensive.
•Financial requirements not explicitly stated in the provided text.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
Fairness45/100
The tender value is disclosed, and e-procurement is enabled, which supports equal access. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria severely impacts fairness, as bidders cannot objectively understand how their proposals will be assessed. Requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company.
•No evaluation criteria specified, hindering objective and transparent evaluation.
Practicality70/100
Electronic submission is supported via dedicated portals, and key dates (contract start, duration) are clearly specified. The estimated value is provided. The lack of explicit financial requirements in the provided text is a minor practical inconvenience, requiring bidders to consult external documents.
•Financial requirements not explicitly stated in the provided text, requiring external consultation.
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor omissions like 'Liable Person' being empty and 'Code: N/A' for procedure type are not critical to overall data consistency.
•Liable Person field is empty.
•Type and Procedure codes are listed as 'N/A' despite the names being provided.
Sustainability60/100
The tender explicitly includes 'Innovation Focus' and 'Social Criteria,' which are positive aspects of sustainability. However, it lacks any explicit mention of 'green procurement' or environmental considerations, indicating a missed opportunity for a more holistic sustainability approach.
•Lack of explicit green procurement or environmental sustainability criteria.