Legal Compliance75/100
The tender clearly defines the procedure type and CPV code, and there are no reported disputes. However, the absence of a tender reveal date and, more critically, the lack of specified evaluation criteria are significant compliance issues, especially for a tender above the UK threshold, impacting transparency and adherence to procurement regulations.
•Missing tender reveal date
•No evaluation criteria specified
Clarity80/100
The project description and AI-extracted technical requirements are clear, unambiguous, and well-documented, detailing the scope, capacity, and objectives. The primary clarity deficit lies in the absence of evaluation criteria, which hinders bidders' understanding of how their proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100
Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, and duration, is provided. Requirements are also detailed. However, the critical omission of evaluation criteria represents a significant gap in the tender's completeness, as it leaves bidders without a clear basis for selection.
•Missing evaluation criteria
Fairness60/100
The absence of explicit evaluation criteria severely compromises the fairness and transparency of the procurement process, as bidders cannot understand the basis for award. While requirements appear generic and e-submission via BravoSolutions is indicated, the missing criteria and reveal date create an uneven playing field.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Missing tender reveal date
Practicality75/100
Electronic submission via the BravoSolutions platform is specified, which is a positive for practicality. Key dates such as contract start and duration are clearly stated, and financing information is available. The lack of a direct document URL in the provided snippet is a minor practical inconvenience.
•Document URL not explicitly provided in the snippet
Data Consistency90/100
The tender information is largely consistent, with logical dates and no reported disputes. Minor inconsistencies include the empty 'Liable Person' field and 'N/A' codes for procedure type, but these do not significantly impact the overall data integrity.
•"Liable Person" field empty
•"Code: N/A" for Type and Procedure
Sustainability50/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social criteria (beyond the inherent accessibility improvement of the system), or innovation focus. While improving accessibility has a social benefit, dedicated sustainability objectives are not outlined.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social criteria (beyond accessibility benefit)