Provision of Hold Baggage X-ray Equipment at Six Airports

This tender for X-ray equipment demonstrates clear technical requirements and good basic information but suffers from significant gaps in legal compliance and fairness due to missing evaluation criteria, undisclosed value, and a lack of explicit eligibility and exclusion grounds.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code appropriately. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria is a significant legal compliance concern, as it hinders transparency and equal treatment. The reveal date is missing, preventing a full assessment of the initial publication period. While the ESPD is mentioned, the summary lacks explicit mandatory exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements.

The description of the required X-ray equipment, its lifespan, and maintenance needs for remote locations is clear. However, the overall clarity is significantly hampered by the explicit absence of evaluation criteria, and the lack of detailed mandatory exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements in the provided summary.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadline, and duration are provided. Documents are available and summarized. However, the tender is incomplete regarding critical details like explicit mandatory exclusion, eligibility, financial, and especially evaluation criteria, which are essential for bidders to formulate comprehensive proposals.

The most significant fairness concern is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria, which prevents bidders from understanding how their proposals will be judged and undermines transparency. The classified value also reduces fairness by limiting information for potential bidders. While e-procurement is indicated, a contradiction with 'No e-submission' in automated checks raises questions about equal access.

The tender specifies a clear contract duration and mentions 'E-Procurement,' which generally enhances practicality. However, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' is a practical hurdle. The absence of a clear contract start date and detailed financing information also reduces practicality for planning purposes.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field, 'N/A' codes for Type and Procedure, and the contradiction regarding e-procurement/e-submission.

The tender shows a very low focus on sustainability. There are no explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria mentioned. While a 10-year equipment lifespan implies durability, it is not framed within a broader sustainability strategy.