Legal Compliance70/100
The procedure type and CPV code are clearly defined, and there are no disputes. However, the absence of specific mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements in the provided information is a notable legal compliance gap.
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds detailed
•No specific eligibility requirements detailed
Clarity60/100
The service description is highly detailed and unambiguous. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria, along with missing explicit eligibility and financial requirements, significantly reduces overall clarity for potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No specific eligibility requirements detailed
Completeness65/100
Basic information, value, duration, and location are well-provided, and documents are available. Nevertheless, the tender's completeness is significantly hampered by the lack of explicit evaluation criteria, eligibility, and financial requirements in the summary.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Missing explicit eligibility requirements
Fairness55/100
The tender's value is disclosed, and documents are accessible. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as bidders cannot understand how their proposals will be judged. The lack of e-submission also limits equal access.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No e-submission option
Practicality60/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders.
•No electronic submission supported
Data Consistency85/100
Key fields are generally populated, and dates are logical and consistent. Minor gaps include an empty 'Liable Person' field and 'N/A' codes for procedure types, but these do not indicate major inconsistencies.
•Liable Person field is empty
•N/A codes for procedure type
Sustainability50/100
The tender includes an innovation focus, which is a positive characteristic. However, it explicitly lacks green procurement and social criteria, limiting its overall contribution to broader sustainability goals.
•Not green procurement
•No social criteria