Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines a 'Competitive flexible procedure' which is appropriate for complex IT, and the CPV code is relevant. The submission deadline is very reasonable. However, the 'Code: N/A' for procedure types and the AI flag regarding missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary are minor concerns.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary
•Procedure type codes are 'N/A'
Clarity65/100
The description of the required SaaS debt management system and the AI-extracted technical requirements are very clear and detailed. However, the critical absence of explicit evaluation criteria is a major flaw, significantly impacting how bidders can understand the assessment process.
•Missing evaluation criteria
Completeness70/100
Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are well-specified. The requirements are detailed. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria is a significant gap in completeness. Only one of four tender documents was provided for analysis, which might indicate further missing details.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Only 1 of 4 tender documents provided for analysis (potential for missing details)
Fairness60/100
The tender benefits from a long submission deadline, disclosed value, and the requirement for a COTS solution, which generally promotes fairness. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises transparency and fairness. The lack of e-submission also creates barriers to equal access.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•No electronic submission (e-submission)
Practicality65/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The document URL is not explicitly provided, and the financial value inconsistency could lead to practical confusion.
•No electronic submission (e-submission)
•Document URL not explicitly provided
Data Consistency70/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a significant inconsistency in the estimated contract value, with different figures provided in EUR and GBP, along with a textual typo ('million million'). The 'Liable Person' is also missing.
•Inconsistency in estimated contract value (EUR vs GBP and typo)
•Missing 'Liable Person'
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly includes an 'Innovation Focus' and requires an 'innovative future roadmap', which is a positive aspect. However, it completely lacks any explicit green procurement or social criteria, which are increasingly standard in public sector tenders.
•No green procurement criteria
•No social criteria