Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type as 'Open' and assigns an appropriate CPV code. Deadlines appear reasonable, and there are no reported disputes. However, the 'Liable Person' is not specified, and mandatory exclusion grounds are not explicitly detailed in the provided description, requiring reference to external documents.
•Missing 'Liable Person'
•Mandatory exclusion grounds not explicit in description
Clarity60/100
The service description and AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable. However, a significant deficiency is the explicit absence of evaluation criteria, which is crucial for bidders to formulate competitive and compliant proposals.
•Missing evaluation criteria
Completeness70/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, and duration are provided. Location details are also present. However, the tender is incomplete without the referenced 'PSQ Document' for full details, and critically, evaluation criteria are not defined.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•'PSQ Document' not provided in input
Fairness60/100
The tender benefits from disclosed value, e-procurement enablement via Delta eSourcing, and seemingly generic requirements. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises the objectivity and transparency of the procurement process, making it difficult for all bidders to compete fairly.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Contradiction on 'Value Classified'
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission is supported through the provided Delta eSourcing portal links, and the contract start date and duration are clear. However, the reliance on external documents (PSQ) for comprehensive information and somewhat vague financing details ('fixed annual return and/or subsidy') reduce its immediate practicality from the provided text.
•Reliance on external documents for full details
•Vague financing specifics
Data Consistency90/100
The tender exhibits good data consistency with logical dates and no reported disputes. Minor inconsistencies include the missing 'Liable Person', N/A codes for procedure types, and a contradiction between 'Value Classified: Yes' and the explicit disclosure of the estimated value.
•Missing 'Liable Person'
•N/A codes for procedure type
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly incorporates 'Social Criteria' and an 'Innovation Focus', which are positive aspects. The description also highlights the school's location in a socially deprived area, reinforcing social considerations. However, there is no explicit mention of green procurement aspects.
•No explicit green procurement aspects