Retention Labels – SharePoint Online

This tender for SharePoint Online retention label implementation is clear in its technical scope and provides essential basic information, but it suffers from significant deficiencies in transparency and completeness, notably the absence of explicit evaluation criteria and the lack of e-submission.

The procedure type and CPV code are clearly defined, and there are no reported disputes. However, the missing tender reveal date and the absence of explicit evaluation criteria in the summary are notable transparency and disclosure gaps, posing minor compliance risks. The AI summary also notes that mandatory exclusion and eligibility grounds are not explicitly mentioned.

The core service description is clear and unambiguous, and the technical requirements are specific to SharePoint Online (E3 license) and the retention schedule. However, the critical absence of explicit evaluation criteria significantly reduces the overall clarity of the tender process for potential bidders.

Basic information, deadlines, estimated value, contract duration, and location are all provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the missing evaluation criteria, the failure to download the 'Tender Notice' document, and the lack of explicit mandatory exclusion and eligibility grounds in the AI summary.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the technical requirements, while specific to SharePoint, do not appear tailored to a single company. However, the critical absence of explicit evaluation criteria and the lack of electronic submission severely undermine the transparency and equal access for all potential bidders. The failed document download also impacts full access.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The failed download of a key document also impacts the practicality of accessing full tender information.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent (submission before contract start). Minor inconsistencies include empty 'Liable Person' and 'Code' fields for type/procedure, and the missing tender reveal date. The slight discrepancy between EUR and GBP estimated values is negligible for an estimate.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.