Legal Compliance30/100
The tender suffers from critical legal compliance issues, including the complete absence of evaluation criteria, a direct contradiction in submission deadlines, and a 'preferred partner' clause that, despite caveats, raises concerns about equal treatment. The reliance on physical submission also deviates from modern best practices.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Contradictory submission deadline
Clarity25/100
While the scope of work is generally understandable, the tender lacks fundamental clarity regarding the procurement process. The absence of evaluation criteria leaves bidders uncertain about how their proposals will be assessed, and the conflicting submission deadlines create significant confusion. The mention of 'Divided into Parts' without further detail also reduces clarity.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Contradictory submission deadline
Completeness25/100
The tender is critically incomplete due to the omission of evaluation criteria and the failure to provide the 'preliminary specification attached' as referenced in the description. The listing of the 'Official PDF Version' as 'Required: No' is also confusing and suggests a lack of clarity in document management.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Contradictory submission deadline
Fairness20/100
Fairness is severely compromised by the absence of transparent evaluation criteria, the explicit mention of a 'preferred partner' (RAS Ltd) which creates an inherent bias, and the brand-specific requirement for the Alumasc system. The physical submission method further limits equal access and transparency.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•'Preferred partner' clause
Practicality35/100
The tender's practicality is low due to the exclusive reliance on physical submission, which is an outdated and less efficient method compared to electronic procurement. The absence of a document URL also hinders easy access to information.
•No electronic submission
•No document URL
Data Consistency15/100
A critical flaw in data consistency is the direct contradiction between the 'Submission Deadline' in the timeline (February 9, 2026) and the deadline stated in the description (February 6, 2026). This fundamental error can lead to confusion and potential disqualification of bids.
•Contradictory submission deadlines (Feb 6 vs Feb 9)
Sustainability20/100
The tender shows minimal consideration for sustainability, with only DBS vetting mentioned as a social aspect. There are no explicit criteria for green procurement, social responsibility beyond basic safeguarding, or innovation.
•Lack of explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria