Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and assigns an appropriate CPV code. However, the absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and specified evaluation criteria are significant legal compliance issues. The missing reveal date also hinders a full assessment of deadline reasonableness.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
•No evaluation criteria specified
Clarity70/100
The description of the works and the AI-extracted technical requirements are detailed and clear, providing a good understanding of the project scope. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria severely impacts the clarity for bidders on how their proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, and duration are present. However, the tender is incomplete due to the missing liable person, mandatory exclusion grounds, and crucially, evaluation criteria. The fact that only one document is listed and marked 'Required: No' is also a significant concern for a works contract.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
Fairness60/100
The lack of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as bidders cannot objectively prepare their offers. The absence of e-submission and the questionable full document access (only one document, marked 'Required: No') also detract from equal access and transparency. Requirements do not appear tailored.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No e-submission
Practicality65/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. A direct document URL was not explicitly provided in the input, which could also pose a minor practical hurdle.
•No e-submission
•Document URL not explicitly provided in the input
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. Minor inconsistencies include the missing 'Liable Person' and the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag contradicting the explicit disclosure of the estimated value.
•Liable Person missing
•"Value Classified: Yes" contradicts explicit value disclosure
Sustainability50/100
The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•Not green procurement
•No social criteria