Simulated Consultation Assessment (SCA) Preparation Course

This tender provides clear service requirements and utilizes an e-procurement portal, but significantly lacks explicit evaluation criteria, eligibility, and mandatory exclusion grounds, impacting transparency and fairness. While practical in its submission process, the overall documentation quality is hampered by these critical omissions.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly. The 16-day submission period from today's date is reasonable for a below-threshold tender. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and evaluation criteria in the provided information presents a legal risk regarding transparency and equal treatment.

The description of the required service, target audience, and financial envelope is clear. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major clarity issue, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. The lack of explicit eligibility and exclusion grounds also reduces overall clarity.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, description, and financial details are present. However, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of evaluation criteria, explicit eligibility, and mandatory exclusion grounds. Additionally, only one of the four listed documents was provided for analysis, suggesting further critical information might be missing from this overview. There is a minor discrepancy in the stated contract duration.

The tender promotes fairness by disclosing the estimated value and enabling e-procurement with free registration and a dedicated portal for communication. The requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company. However, the critical omission of evaluation criteria severely undermines fairness, as bidders cannot objectively understand the basis for award decisions.

The tender is practical, clearly supporting electronic submission via a dedicated e-tendering portal with a provided URL. The contract start date and financing information are available, and the duration is clearly specified in the description, despite a minor field discrepancy. The automated check's 'No e-submission' flag is incorrect based on the tender description.

Key fields are mostly populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical. The main inconsistency is the 'Contract Duration' field (13 months) versus the description (12 months + two 12-month extensions, totaling 36 months), though the description clarifies the intent. 'Liable Person' and procedure codes are not specified.

The tender does not include any specific criteria related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.