Study on assistive technologies

This tender is generally well-structured with clear descriptions and evaluation criteria, but a critical concern is the restricted access to tender documents, which significantly undermines transparency and fairness.

Deadlines are reasonable, and the CPV code is appropriate. However, the absence of specific codes for procurement type and procedure, along with the flagged 'Restricted document access', raises concerns regarding full compliance with transparency requirements.

The tender's title and description are clear. Requirements are well-referenced to specific documents, and the evaluation criterion (lowest price) is explicitly stated, ensuring good clarity for potential bidders.

Basic information, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location are all provided. Requirements and criteria are defined in the document summaries. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a significant barrier to completeness from a bidder's perspective.

The estimated value is disclosed, deadlines are reasonable, evaluation criteria are objective ('lowest price'), e-procurement is enabled, and there's no indication of tailored requirements. However, 'Restricted document access' is a critical flaw that severely impedes equal opportunity and fair competition.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration and financing information are clear. The absence of a specific contract start date and the issue of restricted document access reduce the overall practicality for bidders.

Key fields are mostly populated, and dates are logical and consistent. Minor inconsistencies include missing type/procedure codes, but overall data integrity is high. Contradictions from automated checks regarding evaluation criteria and e-submission were resolved by deeper analysis.

The tender is EU-funded, which generally implies higher standards. However, there are no explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus criteria mentioned within the tender requirements.