Legal Compliance75/100
The procedure type and CPV code are clear, and the submission deadline appears reasonable from today's date. However, the missing reveal date and, more significantly, the absence of evaluation criteria in the notice itself are notable omissions for initial transparency and legal compliance.
•Missing tender reveal date
•Evaluation criteria not specified in the tender notice
Clarity80/100
The project description and AI-extracted technical capability requirements are clear and well-articulated. However, the overall clarity of the notice is reduced by the deferral of mandatory exclusion, eligibility, financial requirements, and crucially, evaluation criteria to external documents.
•Evaluation criteria not specified in the tender notice
•Mandatory exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements deferred to external documents
Completeness70/100
Basic information, financial details, and timeline are comprehensively provided. Nevertheless, the notice is incomplete regarding essential requirements such as mandatory exclusion, eligibility, financial criteria, and especially evaluation criteria, which are not detailed within the notice itself.
•Evaluation criteria not specified in the tender notice
•Mandatory exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements not detailed in the tender notice
Fairness65/100
Full document access and value disclosure contribute positively to fairness. However, the absence of evaluation criteria in the notice significantly hinders transparency for bidders. Furthermore, the lack of e-submission support presents a barrier to equal access and modern procurement practices.
•Evaluation criteria not specified in the tender notice
•No electronic submission (e-submission) supported
Practicality65/100
While the document URL, contract start date, financing information, and duration are clearly provided, the absence of electronic submission (e-submission) is a significant practical drawback in contemporary procurement, heavily impacting this score.
•No electronic submission (e-submission) supported
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and the provided dates are logical and consistent. Minor omissions include the 'Liable Person' field and the tender's reveal date, but these do not significantly detract from overall data consistency.
•Missing information for 'Liable Person'
•Missing tender reveal date
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly mentions an 'Innovation Focus' and the project itself has inherent environmental and social benefits (park restoration, community facilities). However, the notice lacks specific green procurement criteria or social clauses for the contractor's selection or performance.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social procurement criteria