Legal Compliance65/100
The tender clearly defines the procedure type and assigns an appropriate CPV code. The submission deadline provides ample time for preparation. However, the absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds and, more critically, the complete omission of evaluation criteria, represent significant legal compliance deficiencies for a tender of this value, which would typically fall under national regulations transposing EU directives.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds
•No evaluation criteria specified
Clarity60/100
The tender description is detailed, outlining the school's objectives and desired service quality clearly. The AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive and understandable. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major clarity issue for potential bidders, making it impossible to understand how proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness65/100
The tender includes all essential basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and key deadlines. Requirements are well-articulated. However, the critical omission of evaluation criteria renders the tender incomplete from a bidder's perspective, as a fundamental component for proposal preparation and understanding the award process is missing.
•Missing evaluation criteria
Fairness55/100
The tender provides a reasonable timeframe for submission and discloses the estimated value, promoting transparency. However, the absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises fairness, as bidders cannot objectively tailor their proposals or understand the basis of comparison. Furthermore, the lack of electronic submission capabilities creates an unnecessary barrier and reduces equal access for all potential suppliers. The detailed requirements, while not overtly tailored, could implicitly favor larger, more resourced companies due to the emphasis on a 'strong Contractor Area Manager' and 'substantial time on site.'
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No e-submission
Practicality60/100
The tender clearly specifies the contract start date, duration, and financial expectations (nil-subsidy preference). A detailed tender schedule is provided, including site visits and clarification deadlines. However, the absence of electronic submission capabilities is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders and the contracting authority.
Data Consistency90/100
The tender exhibits strong data consistency, with all critical dates being logical and flowing correctly within the provided schedule. Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and CPV code are populated. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and 'N/A' codes for the procedure type, but these do not detract significantly from overall data integrity.
•'Liable Person' empty
•'Code: N/A' for Type/Procedure
Sustainability70/100
The tender demonstrates a commendable focus on innovation, seeking a 'modern, branded offer' and 'latest catering concepts.' It also incorporates social aspects by emphasizing nutritionally balanced meals and encouraging healthy choices for students. However, it lacks explicit criteria related to environmental sustainability or green procurement practices, which are increasingly important in public tenders.
•No explicit green procurement criteria