Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and uses an appropriate CPV code, with no reported disputes. However, the absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and specified evaluation criteria, along with the lack of e-submission, are notable compliance issues, even if the value is just below the EU threshold for sub-central authorities.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
•No evaluation criteria specified
Clarity80/100
The service description is very clear and the AI-extracted requirements are well-defined and understandable. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria significantly reduces the overall clarity for potential bidders, making it difficult to understand how proposals will be judged.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Performance conditions not explicitly detailed
Completeness70/100
Basic information, financial details, and timeline are largely present. However, the most significant issue is the apparent lack of full tender documentation, with only one PDF provided and marked as 'not required'. This, coupled with missing evaluation criteria and the liable person's name, indicates substantial incompleteness.
•Full tender documentation (ITT, specifications, forms) not provided/accessible in the input
•Missing evaluation criteria
Fairness85/100
The tender discloses the estimated value and its requirements appear generic, not tailored to a specific company. The 'Divided into Parts' characteristic is positive for competition. However, the absence of evaluation criteria, limited document access, and lack of e-submission significantly undermine fairness and equal opportunity for all potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Lack of full tender document access
Practicality65/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, which is practical for planning. However, the absence of electronic submission is a major practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders. A document URL is also not provided.
•No e-submission
•Document URL not provided
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical and consistent. Minor inconsistencies include the missing 'Liable Person' and 'N/A' codes for procedure type, but these do not severely impact overall data integrity.
•Missing Liable Person
•"Code: N/A" for Type/Procedure
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly highlights 'Innovation Focus' and 'Social Criteria' as characteristics, and the service itself (supporting disabled children) is inherently social. While not explicitly 'green procurement' or EU funded, these aspects demonstrate a commitment to broader sustainability goals.
•No explicit 'green procurement' elements mentioned