Legal Compliance75/100
The tender correctly identifies the CPV code and is free of disputes. However, the absence of a defined procedure type and code is a significant legal omission for a formal tender, even if understandable for a preliminary market engagement notice. The estimated value is above EU thresholds, implying full regulatory compliance will be required.
•Procedure type and code are undefined.
•Liable person is not specified.
Clarity70/100
The service description is detailed and clearly explains the operational context, contract duration, and the rationale for extension options due to potential ORT implementation. Technical requirements are clear. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria and detailed exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements significantly reduces overall clarity for potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•Exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements are not detailed.
Completeness65/100
Basic information such as title, organization, reference, value, duration, and location are well-provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the missing procedure type, evaluation criteria, and comprehensive details for exclusion, eligibility, and financial requirements, which are fundamental for a full tender package.
•Missing procedure type and code.
•Missing evaluation criteria.
Fairness60/100
The estimated value is disclosed, and the technical requirements do not appear to be tailored to a specific company. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises transparency and objectivity, making it difficult for bidders to prepare competitive proposals. The absence of e-submission also creates an unnecessary barrier to equal access.
•No evaluation criteria specified, impacting transparency and objectivity.
•No e-submission support, limiting equal access for bidders.
Practicality60/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, and the financing context is provided. However, the lack of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. Direct document URLs are not explicitly provided, though documents are summarized.
•No electronic submission support.
•Document URLs are not explicitly provided.
Data Consistency75/100
Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Most key fields are populated. However, the 'Type', 'Procedure', and 'Liable Person' fields are empty, and a 'Missing reveal date' is flagged, indicating some data gaps.
•Key fields ('Type', 'Procedure', 'Liable Person') are unpopulated.
•Missing reveal date.
Sustainability30/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social criteria (beyond the legal requirement of TUPE), or innovation focus as part of the evaluation or requirements. The mention of potential Open Road Tolling is an operational consideration, not a sustainability or innovation requirement for the bidder.
•No explicit green procurement criteria.
•No explicit social criteria (beyond TUPE).