Legal Compliance100/100
The tender appears to follow an Open procedure, which is generally compliant with public procurement principles. However, the lack of explicit mention of mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary is a potential oversight, though these are typically covered in full tender documents. The use of an e-tendering portal is good practice.
•Absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary.
Clarity40/100
The description of services required (opening/closing, cleansing, minor maintenance, consumables, hygiene, waste disposal) is clear. The contract structure with two lots and their respective durations/extensions is also clearly outlined. The process for communication via the e-tendering portal is clear.
•The term 'Most Advantageous Tender' is used without any accompanying explanation of the award criteria (e.g., price-quality ratio, specific weighting), significantly reducing clarity for bidders.
Completeness83/100
The provided information is a high-level summary. It lacks crucial details typically found in full tender documents, such as detailed specifications, service level agreements, specific financial requirements beyond a general capacity statement, and, most importantly, the full evaluation criteria and methodology. The 'No documents attached, No document content available' flag is highly relevant here.
•Missing full tender documents (ITT, detailed specifications, terms and conditions).
•Absence of detailed evaluation criteria and their weighting.
Fairness60/100
The requirement for a 'single supplier capable of being awarded two contracts' and providing services for both Lot 1 (5 years + 1 year extension) and Lot 2 (1 year + up to 5 years extension) could potentially limit competition. While Lot 2 is shorter initially, the combined scope and the requirement to manage two distinct contracts simultaneously might favor larger, more established companies. The lack of detailed evaluation criteria further hinders fairness as bidders cannot fully understand how their proposals will be judged.
•Requirement for a single supplier for both Lot 1 and Lot 2, potentially limiting participation from smaller or specialized firms.
•Absence of detailed, transparent evaluation criteria, which can lead to subjective assessment and reduce fairness.
Practicality40/100
The operational requirements are practical for the nature of the service. The use of an e-tendering portal is practical for submission and communication. The contract durations, especially for Lot 1, offer stability for the awarded supplier.
•The requirement for a single supplier for two distinct contracts, one significantly longer than the other, might pose operational and financial challenges for some bidders, potentially impacting the pool of qualified tenderers.
Data Consistency100/100
The information provided appears internally consistent regarding contract durations, estimated value, and service description.
Sustainability0/100
The tender notice does not include any explicit requirements or considerations for environmental, social, or innovative aspects. The automated check also flags 'Not green procurement', 'No social criteria', and 'No innovation focus'.
•Lack of explicit green procurement criteria (e.g., use of eco-friendly cleaning products, waste reduction targets).
•Absence of social criteria (e.g., fair labor practices, local employment, community benefits).