Legal Compliance60/100
The procedure type and CPV codes are correctly assigned, and the submission deadline is reasonable for an open procedure. However, the critical omission of explicit evaluation criteria is a significant legal compliance issue, as it undermines transparency and equal treatment principles. The 'Missing reveal date' is also a minor disclosure gap.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Missing reveal date
Clarity65/100
The service description and AI-extracted requirements are generally clear and understandable, and performance conditions are mentioned. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria creates significant ambiguity for bidders regarding how their proposals will be assessed, severely impacting overall clarity.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100
Basic information, financial details, and timeline are well-provided, and requirements are detailed. However, the explicit absence of evaluation criteria is a major gap. While one PDF document is listed, the description refers to a 'sample form of contract' and 'Finance Model schedule,' suggesting other crucial documents might not be fully represented in the provided data.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Potential for other crucial documents not fully represented in the provided data
Fairness55/100
The tender uses an e-procurement portal and discloses the estimated value, promoting equal access. The submission deadline is reasonable for preparation. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a severe fairness concern, as it prevents bidders from understanding the basis of award and preparing competitive, compliant bids. Requirements are qualitative but not overtly tailored.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Practicality90/100
Electronic submission is clearly supported via the Delta eSourcing portal, and direct links are provided. The contract start date and duration are well-defined. Financing information (estimated value) is available, and the mention of a 'Finance Model schedule' implies further details are accessible.
Data Consistency80/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include 'Liable Person' being empty, 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicting the disclosed value, and the 'Divided into Parts' characteristic not being explicitly supported by the description.
•'Liable Person' field is empty
•'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts disclosed value
Sustainability75/100
The tender explicitly includes 'Social Criteria' and 'Innovation Focus' as characteristics, demonstrating a strong commitment to social value and innovation. However, there is no explicit mention of environmental or green procurement aspects.
•No explicit green procurement aspects