Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines an open procedure and provides a reasonable submission timeframe from today's date. The CPV code is slightly narrow for the full scope of works, and the 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicts the disclosed value. The most significant legal compliance issue is the explicit absence of evaluation criteria, which is a fundamental requirement for an open procedure.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•CPV code might be too narrow for the full scope of works
Clarity60/100
The description of the works, geographical lots, and AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria makes it impossible for potential bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed, severely undermining the clarity of the procurement process itself.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness65/100
Most basic information, including title, organization, value, duration, and location, is provided. Requirements are defined, but the critical omission of evaluation criteria is a major gap. Furthermore, only one of four tender documents is summarized, raising concerns about the completeness of the provided tender information.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Only 1 of 4 tender documents summarized, potentially missing critical details
Fairness40/100
The requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company, and the estimated value is disclosed. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a critical flaw that severely compromises fairness and transparency, as bidders cannot objectively prepare their proposals. The lack of e-submission also hinders equal access.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No e-submission
Practicality60/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission (e-submission) is a significant practical drawback, increasing administrative burden for bidders. An explicit document URL is also not provided in the analyzed content.
•No e-submission
•Document URL not explicitly provided
Data Consistency70/100
Key fields are mostly populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the 'Liable Person' field is empty, and there is a direct contradiction between 'Value Classified: Yes' and the explicit disclosure of the estimated value.
•Contradiction: 'Value Classified: Yes' vs. disclosed value
•Missing 'Liable Person'
Sustainability20/100
The tender description and requirements make no mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a significant missed opportunity to incorporate modern public procurement best practices for sustainability and social value.
•No green procurement criteria
•No social criteria