Iodine-131 Sodium Iodide Capsules

This tender is generally well-structured and transparent, but it presents some areas for improvement regarding contract duration clarity and data consistency. The specialized nature of the product (radioactive capsules) influences certain aspects of the procurement.

Deadlines are reasonable, and the CPV code is appropriate. The vagueness of the procedure type and 'N/A' codes for Type/Procedure is a minor weakness. No disputes or suspensions are detected, and it appears to comply with national and international (WTO/GPA) regulations.

The product description and technical requirements are clear. Evaluation criteria are specified as 100% price, resolving an initial inconsistency. However, the relationship between the estimated value and the maximum value could be more explicitly defined.

Basic information, deadlines, and value are provided. A significant omission is the actual duration of the framework agreement, which is crucial for bidders' planning and understanding of the contract's scope.

Full document access, disclosed value, and reasonable deadlines contribute to fairness. Evaluation criteria are objective, and e-procurement is enabled. Requirements are specific to the product and its regulatory environment, not tailored to a specific company. The 'Max Participants: 1' for a framework agreement is unusual but may be justified by the highly specialized market.

Electronic submission is supported, and a contract start date is known. However, the absence of a clear contract duration significantly impacts the practicality for bidders to plan and assess long-term commitments.

Most key fields are populated. However, there is a clear contradiction between 'Evaluation Criteria: relative_weighting' and '100% based on offer price', even if clarified by a specific document. The discrepancy between estimated and maximum value also lacks full explanation.

The tender does not include specific green, social, or innovation criteria. As a procurement for a specialized medical product, these aspects are often not primary considerations, leading to a neutral score.