Legal Compliance75/100
The tender correctly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and there are no reported disputes. The 16-day period from today's date to the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the estimated value is classified, and the reveal date is missing, which are transparency concerns.
•Value not disclosed (classified)
•Missing reveal date
Clarity80/100
The technical description of the required LC-MS system and its applications is exceptionally clear and detailed. The AI-extracted technical requirements are also precise and well-documented. A significant drawback is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria, which leaves bidders without clear guidance on how their proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100
Basic information, deadlines, and contract duration are provided. Technical requirements are well-defined. However, the estimated value is classified, and crucially, evaluation criteria are entirely missing, which are major omissions for a comprehensive tender document.
•Value not disclosed (classified)
•Missing evaluation criteria
Fairness40/100
The classified estimated value and the complete lack of evaluation criteria severely undermine transparency and fairness for potential bidders. The absence of e-submission also creates an unequal playing field. Furthermore, the highly specific technical requirements, demanding 'proven performance' and 'published evidence' in multiple niche proteomics applications, strongly suggest the tender may be tailored to a very limited number of high-end manufacturers, significantly restricting competition.
•Value not disclosed (classified)
•Missing evaluation criteria
Practicality65/100
The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the lack of electronic submission is a practical inconvenience, and the classified estimated value makes it difficult for bidders to gauge the scope and prepare appropriate financial proposals.
•No e-submission
•Value not disclosed (classified)
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and N/A codes for procedure type.
•Liable Person not specified
•N/A codes for procedure type
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly mentions an 'Innovation Focus' which is a positive aspect. However, it lacks any specified green procurement or social criteria, and it is not EU funded, indicating limited broader sustainability considerations.
•Not green procurement
•No social criteria