Legal Compliance60/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and there are no reported disputes. However, the absence of a specified reveal date makes it impossible to verify compliance with minimum advertising periods, which is a significant legal compliance concern.
Clarity60/100
The service description is clear and unambiguous, and AI-extracted requirements are understandable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria and the deferral of detailed service requirements to full documents significantly reduce the overall clarity of the provided information.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Detailed service requirements deferred to full documents
Completeness65/100
Basic information, financial details, timeline, and location are provided, and documents are available. Nevertheless, the tender lacks complete definition of evaluation criteria and full service requirements within the provided extract, making it incomplete for a comprehensive assessment.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Full service requirements not detailed in extract
Fairness55/100
Document access and e-procurement are supported, and requirements appear generic. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a major transparency issue, preventing bidders from understanding the basis of selection and thus significantly impacting fairness.
•Missing evaluation criteria
Practicality80/100
The tender supports electronic submission, provides necessary URLs, and clearly states the contract start date and duration. The revenue-sharing financial model, while unconventional, is clearly explained.
Data Consistency75/100
Key dates are logical, and there are no reported disputes. Most essential fields are populated, though minor gaps exist such as the 'Liable Person' field and missing codes for the procedure type, as well as the reveal date.
•'Liable Person' field empty
•Missing codes for Type/Procedure
Sustainability20/100
The tender does not include any explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, nor is it indicated as EU-funded.
•No sustainability, social, or innovation criteria