Internal Audit Resource Partner

This tender provides a clear description of the required audit services and detailed technical capabilities. However, it suffers from significant gaps in crucial information such as explicit eligibility, financial, and mandatory exclusion grounds, and critically, the complete absence of evaluation criteria.

The procedure type and CPV code are correctly assigned, and the 25-day deadline for the Request to Participate stage is generally reasonable. However, the absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and financial requirements represents significant compliance gaps. The contradictory 'Value Classified: Yes' despite a stated value also raises transparency concerns.

The description of services and the AI-extracted technical capability requirements are very clear and detailed. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major clarity flaw. The lack of explicit eligibility, financial, and exclusion criteria also reduces overall clarity for potential bidders.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location (NUTS code) are provided. However, the tender is significantly incomplete due to the absence of explicit eligibility, financial, exclusion, and evaluation criteria. The status of full tender documents also appears unclear, with only one document summary provided.

The lack of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as bidders cannot understand how their submissions will be judged. The absence of e-submission also creates a barrier to equal access and efficiency. The contradictory 'Value Classified: Yes' statement reduces transparency. While the technical requirements appear generic, these other factors significantly impact fairness.

The tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. A direct document URL is not provided in the available information. While the contract start date and duration are clearly specified, the absence of e-submission makes the process less efficient and practical.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the direct contradiction between the stated 'Estimated Value' and the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag is a significant data inconsistency. Minor issues include missing codes for procedure types and an empty 'Liable Person' field.

The tender shows no explicit integration of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also noted as not being EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to incorporate modern sustainability principles into the procurement process.