Legal Compliance85/100
The tender clearly defines itself as a Soft Market Testing exercise, not a formal procurement, which aligns with pre-procurement market engagement principles. The 15-day response period is reasonable for an SMT, and the CPV code is appropriate. While 'Type' and 'Procedure' fields are marked 'None', the detailed description clarifies its legal nature.
•Structured data fields 'Type' and 'Procedure' are marked 'None' despite the clear description of Soft Market Testing.
Clarity95/100
The description of the SMT purpose, scope, and the information sought from potential partners is exceptionally clear and unambiguous. The AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive and directly support the stated objectives. The absence of formal evaluation criteria is appropriate for an SMT.
Completeness75/100
Most essential information, including title, organization, reference, description, deadlines, duration, and location (NUTS code), is provided. Requirements for the SMT are well-defined. However, one of the four tender documents failed to download, which is a notable gap in document accessibility.
•One tender document (OCDS Record) failed to download, impacting full document completeness.
Fairness80/100
The SMT is designed to be open and gather broad market interest, with generic requirements that do not appear tailored to a specific company. The classified value is acceptable for an exploratory SMT. The 15-day deadline is reasonable for market engagement. However, the lack of electronic submission and the failed document download slightly detract from optimal accessibility.
•Lack of electronic submission may create minor barriers to participation for some suppliers.
•One tender document failed to download, potentially limiting full information access.
Practicality55/100
The primary practical concern is the absence of electronic submission support, which is a significant drawback for modern procurement processes in 2026. While the contract start date and duration are clear, the tender is seeking financing information rather than providing it, which is expected for an SMT.
•Electronic submission is not supported, which is a practical inefficiency.
•Financing information is being sought from respondents, not provided by the contracting authority.
Data Consistency65/100
While dates are logical and there are no disputes, several key structured fields ('Liable Person', 'Type', 'Procedure') are either empty or inconsistent with the clear descriptive text identifying this as a Soft Market Testing exercise. This indicates some data entry or classification inconsistencies.
•The 'Liable Person' field is empty.
•The 'Type' and 'Procedure' fields are marked 'None' despite the clear description of Soft Market Testing, indicating data classification inconsistency.
Sustainability30/100
The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or specific innovation focus as part of its criteria or objectives. While this is an SMT, the absence of any forward-looking sustainability considerations results in a low score for this category.
•No explicit green procurement criteria are mentioned.
•No social aspects are included in the tender requirements.