Legal Compliance40/100
The tender lacks crucial legal elements, including mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and evaluation criteria. The missing reveal date makes it impossible to verify the minimum publication period, and the 'Official PDF Version' being 'Required: No' is unusual. These are fundamental gaps in legal compliance.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
•Missing eligibility requirements
Clarity55/100
While the technical requirements for the ITSM platform are detailed and clear, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a major clarity issue. Bidders cannot fully understand how their proposals will be assessed, which creates ambiguity.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness50/100
Basic information like title, reference, organization, value, and duration are present. However, the tender is incomplete regarding mandatory legal criteria (exclusion, eligibility) and the critical evaluation criteria. The inconsistency in contract value/currency between the main information and the document summary also indicates incompleteness.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
•Missing eligibility requirements
Fairness45/100
The long submission period is positive for fairness. However, the absence of evaluation criteria severely impacts transparency and objectivity, making it difficult for bidders to compete fairly. The lack of e-submission also limits equal access for potential suppliers.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No e-submission supported
Practicality35/100
The tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. Furthermore, the contract start date being identical to the submission deadline is illogical and highly impractical, indicating a procedural error.
•No e-submission supported
•Contract start date is identical to submission deadline
Data Consistency30/100
There are notable inconsistencies, including the contract value being stated as 720,000 EUR in the basic info but £600,000 in the document summary. The contract start date being the same as the submission deadline is also a major logical inconsistency. Some fields like 'Liable Person' and procedure codes are also missing.
•Inconsistency in contract value/currency between main info and document summary
•Contract start date is identical to submission deadline (illogical)
Sustainability20/100
The tender does not include any specific requirements or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, nor is it EU-funded, indicating a complete lack of focus on sustainability.
•Not green procurement
•No social criteria