Youth Advisory Panel

This tender demonstrates good overall quality with clear objectives and transparent evaluation criteria, though some details regarding legal compliance and completeness could be enhanced. Its strong focus on social value is commendable.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and there are no reported disputes. Deadlines appear reasonable given the 'active' status and submission period. However, the absence of specific procedure codes and a 'reveal date' prevents a full assessment of deadline reasonableness from the tender's initial publication.

The tender's description is clear and unambiguous, outlining the purpose of the Young Persons Advisory Panel. Evaluation criteria (quality 70%, price 20%, social value 10%) are explicitly stated. While eligibility requirements like 'suitably qualified and experienced' are somewhat generic, the technical capabilities are well-defined.

All basic information, including title, reference, organization, deadlines, estimated value, and duration, is provided. Documents are listed and summarized. However, the summary of AI-extracted requirements notes 'No specific mandatory exclusion grounds are detailed', which represents a gap in the provided content. Missing codes for the procedure type also affect completeness.

The tender promotes fairness through disclosed value, transparent evaluation criteria, and the use of an eTendering portal for submission. Requirements are generally generic and do not appear tailored to a specific company, fostering open competition. The submission deadline provides a reasonable preparation period.

Electronic submission is supported via the etenderwales eTendering Portal, and key dates like contract start and duration are specified. Financing information (estimated value) is available. A direct URL to the tender documents themselves, rather than just the portal login, would enhance practicality for immediate access.

Key fields are largely populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include missing codes for the procedure type and an empty 'Liable Person' field, but these do not impact the overall coherence of the core tender data.

The tender scores well on social sustainability by explicitly including 'social value' as a 10% evaluation criterion and focusing on integrating youth voices into decision-making. However, it lacks explicit mention of green procurement or innovation aspects, limiting its overall sustainability scope.