Supply of an intramedullary osteosynthesis system for proximal femoral fractures

This tender for medical supplies presents significant data inconsistencies and transparency issues, particularly regarding the estimated value and document access, which undermine its otherwise clear procedural framework and objective evaluation criteria.

The tender uses an open procedure with a reasonable deadline and no disputes, indicating a foundation of compliance. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag raises concerns about transparency and full adherence to open procurement principles, impacting the overall legal compliance score.

The tender title and description are clear, and performance conditions refer to detailed documents. While the AI-extracted requirements are brief, the document summaries indicate that evaluation criteria (lowest price) and other requirements are specified within the tender documents, despite a conflicting automated flag.

Most essential information like title, organization, deadlines, and duration is provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission. The 'Restricted document access' flag also suggests potential incompleteness in publicly available information.

The open procedure, reasonable deadline, and objective 'lowest price' evaluation criterion are positive for fairness. However, the undisclosed estimated value and the 'Restricted document access' flag significantly hinder equal access and transparency. The 'No e-submission' flag, despite contradicting other data, also raises fairness concerns if true.

The tender lists 'E-Procurement' as a characteristic and specifies an electronic opening place, suggesting support for electronic submission. However, the 'No e-submission' flag creates significant confusion. The absence of a direct document URL, contract start date, and financing information further reduces practicality.

The tender data exhibits several critical inconsistencies, including conflicting information on document access ('Restricted document access' vs. 'Documents available'), evaluation criteria ('No evaluation criteria specified' flag vs. document summary), and e-submission ('No e-submission' flag vs. 'E-Procurement' characteristic). This significantly undermines data reliability.

The tender explicitly lacks any mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.