Framework for JES Decontamination Service

This tender presents a clear service requirement and transparent evaluation criteria, but is hampered by a lack of detailed legal and eligibility requirements, the absence of electronic submission, and potentially incomplete document access in the provided information.

Legal compliance is moderate. While the procedure type and CPV codes are clear, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and detailed eligibility requirements in the provided tender information is a notable gap, impacting transparency for potential bidders.

Clarity is good. The service description, technical requirements, and evaluation criteria (90% price, 10% Community Well-being Benefits Plan) are clearly stated, correcting the automated flag regarding missing criteria. A minor inconsistency exists between the 'Divided into Parts' characteristic and the 'single contractor' requirement.

Completeness is moderate. Basic information, value, and duration are present. However, the provided data only summarizes 1 out of 4 tender documents, suggesting significant missing content. Additionally, detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and specific eligibility requirements are not explicitly defined.

Fairness is moderate. While the estimated value is disclosed, deadlines are reasonable for preparation (16 days), and evaluation criteria are objective, the lack of electronic submission and potentially incomplete document access (only 1 of 4 documents summarized) are significant barriers to equal access and transparency.

Practicality is poor. The absence of electronic submission is a major practical drawback in modern procurement, increasing administrative burden for bidders. A direct document URL was also not provided in the given information.

Data consistency is good. Key fields are mostly populated, and dates are logical. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and the contradiction between 'Divided into Parts' and the 'single contractor' requirement.

Sustainability is moderate. The inclusion of a 'Community Well-being Benefits Plan' as a weighted evaluation criterion (10%) is a strong positive for social sustainability, correcting the automated flag. However, the tender lacks explicit green procurement criteria or an innovation focus.