UID 181 - Design training case studies

This tender is generally clear and well-structured, but its transparency and accessibility are significantly hampered by the undisclosed value and lack of e-submission capabilities.

Legal compliance is generally good, with a reasonable submission period and clearly defined procedure type. However, the classified estimated value raises transparency concerns, which is a notable drawback for public procurement.

The description of the required service is clear and unambiguous. Evaluation criteria (45% price, 55% quality) are specified in the tender notice summary, which aids clarity. However, specific details for mandatory exclusion grounds are not provided in the extracted text.

Basic information, deadlines, and duration are provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant gap. Additionally, one of the four tender documents failed to download, impacting overall completeness.

Fairness is significantly impacted by the classified value, which prevents bidders from assessing the project's scale. The absence of e-submission capabilities creates an unequal playing field, and the failed document download limits full access. Requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company.

Practicality for bidders is severely hindered by the lack of electronic submission, which is a fundamental expectation in modern procurement. The undisclosed estimated value also makes it difficult for potential suppliers to gauge the commercial viability of bidding.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there are empty fields (e.g., Liable Person, Type/Procedure codes) and a contradiction regarding evaluation criteria between the document summary and automated flags, indicating some data inconsistency.

The tender completely lacks any mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value considerations into the procurement process.