Purchase of vagus nerve implants

This tender for vagus nerve implants is well-documented with clear requirements, but raises significant concerns regarding potential tailoring of technical specifications for a single supplier in a long-term framework agreement, which could limit competition. There are also minor issues with CPV classification and data consistency.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, including reasonable deadlines and use of ESPD. However, the CPV code (4754 - Medical devices) is too broad for 'vagus nerve implants', potentially affecting visibility and proper classification. The justification for a single-supplier framework without re-competition for 48 months, while provided, could be legally challenged if the market is competitive.

The tender description and AI-extracted requirements are clear and well-structured. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 100% cost. A minor initial inconsistency in the 'Evaluation Criteria' field (relative_weighting vs. 100% cost) was clarified by a specific document.

All essential information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timelines, and location, is provided. Requirements, evaluation criteria, and necessary submission forms are comprehensively defined and attached.

While the tender offers full document access, discloses value, and uses e-procurement, significant fairness concerns arise from the combination of 'Max Participants: 1', 'Framework Agreement: WITHOUT_REOPENING_COMPETITION' for 48 months, and the mention of 'specific parameters for the impulse generator and electrodes'. This structure, especially for specialized medical devices, strongly suggests potential tailoring of requirements to a specific company, severely limiting competition.

The tender supports electronic submission and provides clear timelines and a contract start date. The duration is well-defined. While a direct public URL for documents isn't explicitly listed, the e-procurement system implies accessibility.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is an inconsistency between the 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' in the basic information and the explicit '100% weighting' on cost in the financial requirements and Document 6.

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