Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines an open procedure, uses appropriate CPV codes, and has a reasonable submission timeframe. No disputes or suspensions are noted. However, the explicit details on mandatory exclusion grounds are not provided in the notice, which ideally should be referenced or summarized.
•Mandatory exclusion grounds not explicitly detailed in the tender notice.
Clarity60/100
The description of the services, the purpose of the procurement, and the lot structure is clear and unambiguous. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major deficiency, and the expectation for suppliers to contribute to final requirements introduces potential for ambiguity.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•Suppliers expected to contribute to the development of final requirements, which could lead to ambiguity.
Completeness65/100
Basic information, estimated value, and contract duration are well-defined. However, the tender is incomplete due to the missing evaluation criteria and the fact that only one out of four listed documents has a content summary, suggesting critical information might be missing or not fully processed. Specific financial requirements are also not detailed.
•Missing evaluation criteria.
•Only 1 out of 4 tender documents has a content summary, suggesting other critical documents are not fully processed or available.
Fairness55/100
The division into multiple lots with no bidding restrictions enhances fairness. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria and the lack of e-submission significantly undermine transparency and equal access for all potential bidders. The process of co-developing requirements, while potentially innovative, must be managed carefully to prevent unintended tailoring.
•No evaluation criteria specified, hindering transparency and objectivity.
•No e-submission capability, limiting equal access and efficiency.
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. A direct document URL is also not provided.
•No electronic submission (e-submission) supported.
•Document URL not provided.
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include 'N/A' codes for procedure type, but these do not impact overall data integrity significantly.
•Minor 'N/A' codes for procedure type.
Sustainability70/100
The tender explicitly incorporates 'Innovation Focus' and 'Social Criteria' as characteristics, which are positive aspects for sustainability. However, it is explicitly noted as 'Not green procurement' and is not EU funded, limiting its overall sustainability scope.
•Explicitly noted as 'Not green procurement'.