Legal Compliance75/100
The procedure type and CPV codes are clearly defined, and there are no reported disputes. However, the provided summary lacks explicit mention of standard mandatory exclusion and eligibility grounds, requiring bidders to refer to full documents. The reveal date is also missing from the provided information.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion and eligibility grounds in the provided summary.
•Missing tender reveal date.
Clarity80/100
The service description and technical capability requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, while evaluation will be based on cost and quality, the specific weighting or sub-criteria for quality are not detailed, which significantly impacts the clarity of the evaluation process.
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria (e.g., weighting of cost vs. quality, sub-criteria for quality).
Completeness70/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and deadlines are provided. However, the tender information is incomplete regarding detailed evaluation criteria and explicit legal grounds (mandatory exclusion/eligibility criteria) within the provided summary.
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion and eligibility grounds in the provided summary.
Fairness85/100
Full document access is provided via the e-sourcing portal, the value is disclosed, and e-procurement is enabled, promoting equal access. While the requirement to integrate with 'True Compliance' is specific, it appears to be a functional need rather than tailoring for a specific company. The lack of detailed evaluation criteria, however, reduces transparency in the assessment process.
•Lack of detailed evaluation criteria may reduce transparency and objectivity.
•Requirement to integrate with a specific compliance system ('True Compliance') could be a barrier for some bidders.
Practicality90/100
Electronic submission is clearly supported via the Delta eSourcing portal, and direct URLs are provided. The contract start date and duration are explicitly stated, contributing to good practicality.
•Liable person is not specified.
Data Consistency40/100
A critical inconsistency exists regarding the estimated contract value, stated as '£1.8 million' in the description and '1,800,000.00 EUR' in the financial information. This currency discrepancy is a major flaw that can cause significant confusion for bidders. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.
•Critical inconsistency in estimated contract value (£1.8 million vs. 1,800,000.00 EUR).
•Liable Person field is empty.
Sustainability50/100
The tender lists 'Innovation Focus' as a characteristic, but the description does not elaborate on how bidders should demonstrate innovation beyond integrating with a specific system. There are no explicit green procurement or social criteria mentioned.
•No explicit green procurement criteria.
•No explicit social criteria.