Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines an open procedure and uses an appropriate CPV code. The 22-day submission period from today's date is generally reasonable for an open tender. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria in the initial documentation is a significant legal transparency concern, as is the missing reveal date.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Missing tender reveal date
Clarity80/100
The description of the required services, operational locations, response times, and vehicle categories is highly detailed and unambiguous. However, the overall clarity is reduced by the absence of evaluation criteria and the requirement to register interest for the full specification.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Full specification not immediately available
Completeness70/100
Basic information, estimated value, and contract timeline are well-defined. However, the tender is incomplete due to the lack of immediately accessible full specifications and, critically, the absence of evaluation criteria. The 'Required: No' for the official PDF is also confusing.
•Full specification requires registration
•Missing evaluation criteria
Fairness65/100
The tender discloses the estimated value and the technical requirements do not appear to be tailored. However, fairness is significantly compromised by the absence of transparent evaluation criteria and the requirement to register for full tender documents, which creates a barrier to equal access. The flagged lack of e-submission also reduces equal access.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Full document access requires registration
Practicality65/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the practicality is hindered by the flagged lack of electronic submission capabilities and the need for bidders to register interest to obtain the full specification, which adds an extra step to the process.
•No e-submission (as flagged)
•Full specification requires registration
Data Consistency90/100
The tender exhibits good data consistency with most key fields populated and logical dates. Minor inconsistencies include the empty 'Liable Person' field and the confusing 'Required: No' status for the official PDF document.
•Empty 'Liable Person' field
•'Required: No' status for Official PDF
Sustainability50/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. While this is a service contract, modern public procurement increasingly encourages the inclusion of such aspects.
•No explicit green, social, or innovation criteria