Legal Compliance70/100
The tender defines the procedure type as 'Open' and 'Competitive flexible procedure,' and the CPV code is appropriate. However, the AI-extracted information notes 'No explicit mandatory exclusion grounds are mentioned,' which is a significant legal compliance gap. The procedure code being N/A is a minor ambiguity.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds
•Procedure code N/A
Clarity55/100
The description of the required services and technical capabilities is detailed and generally clear. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major flaw, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness60/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, and duration are provided. However, the critical omission of evaluation criteria significantly impacts the completeness of the tender documentation. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty, and procedure codes are N/A.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Liable Person missing
Fairness35/100
The lack of specified evaluation criteria is a severe fairness issue, as it introduces subjectivity into the award process and reduces transparency. Furthermore, the requirement for specific 'Brixx financial modelling software' expertise, coupled with the offer of additional support for it, raises concerns about potential tailoring of requirements to a limited pool of suppliers, thereby hindering fair competition.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Requirements potentially tailored to specific software/companies (Brixx expertise)
Practicality70/100
The tender supports electronic submission via the Delta eSourcing portal, and document URLs are provided. The contract duration is clearly specified. However, the contract start date being identical to the submission deadline is highly impractical and unrealistic, suggesting an oversight in planning.
•Contract start date is the same as the submission deadline, which is impractical
Data Consistency45/100
A critical inconsistency is the contract start date being identical to the submission deadline, which is illogical. The 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the explicit disclosure of the estimated value. Minor inconsistencies include the empty 'Liable Person' field and N/A codes for procedure type.
•Contract start date identical to submission deadline
•'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts stated value
Sustainability85/100
The tender explicitly lists 'Innovation Focus' and 'Social Criteria' as characteristics and requires bidders to have policies covering 'sustainability' and 'EDI' (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion). This demonstrates a good commitment to incorporating sustainability aspects.