Legal Compliance65/100
The tender clearly defines the procedure type (DPS, restricted procedure) and assigns an appropriate CPV code. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the initial notice lacks a clear reveal date and detailed evaluation criteria, which are typically provided in full procurement documents after registration, impacting initial transparency.
•Missing reveal date
•No evaluation criteria specified in this initial notice
Clarity80/100
The description of the works, including the scope for Major Works and Intermediate Pressure, is highly clear and unambiguous. Technical capability requirements are well-documented and understandable. The main clarity gap is the absence of specific financial requirements and detailed evaluation criteria in this initial notice, which are stated to be in full procurement documents.
•No evaluation criteria specified in this initial notice
•Specific financial requirements not detailed in this initial notice
Completeness70/100
The tender provides all essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, contract duration, and location. While technical requirements are outlined, the detailed evaluation criteria and specific financial requirements are not fully defined in this initial notice, impacting overall completeness.
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria
•Missing specific financial requirements in this initial notice
Fairness50/100
The tender discloses the estimated value and the technical requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the absence of e-submission capabilities is a significant concern for equal access and modern procurement practices. The lack of detailed evaluation criteria in this initial notice also reduces transparency for potential bidders.
•No e-submission
•No evaluation criteria specified in this initial notice
Practicality45/100
The lack of electronic submission support is a major practical drawback, increasing administrative burden for suppliers. While contract start and duration are clear, an explicit document URL is not provided, requiring registration for further details.
•No e-submission
•Document URL not explicitly provided
Data Consistency75/100
Key dates such as contract start and submission deadline are logical and consistent with the DPS nature and reference year. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include a missing liable person and N/A codes for procedure type. The missing reveal date is also a data gap.
•Missing liable person
•Missing reveal date
Sustainability20/100
The tender does not include any explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability considerations into a significant public works contract.
•Not green procurement
•No social criteria