Supply of Mineral Materials

This tender for mineral material supply is structurally well-organized with detailed requirements across multiple parts, but its quality is significantly undermined by restricted document access and critical inconsistencies regarding e-submission and the full clarity of evaluation criteria.

The tender defines an open procedure, uses a correct CPV code, and has no reported disputes. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' is a serious concern, undermining transparency and equal treatment, which are fundamental principles of public procurement.

The tender's description and division into five parts with specific requirements are clear. Performance conditions refer to relevant documents. However, there is an inconsistency regarding evaluation criteria; while AI-extracted requirements mention them, automated checks flag their absence, and for some parts, criteria are only generally referred to as 'specified' without full detail.

Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, and location, is provided. The tender includes 9 documents with summaries. Nevertheless, the 'Restricted document access' issue means that the tender documentation is not fully complete or accessible to all potential bidders.

The tender's fairness is severely compromised by the 'Restricted document access,' which prevents equal access to information for all potential bidders. Furthermore, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' from automated checks, if the latter is true, creates an unequal playing field. The lack of fully detailed evaluation criteria for all parts also reduces transparency.

The practicality is significantly impacted by the 'No e-submission' flag from automated checks, which, if accurate, creates a barrier for bidders. Restricted document access also adds practical hurdles for preparing a comprehensive bid. The duration is clearly specified.

Basic information and dates are logical and consistent. However, there are notable contradictions: the tender is characterized as 'E-Procurement' but automated checks flag 'No e-submission,' and evaluation criteria are mentioned in AI summaries but flagged as missing by automated checks.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement principles, social aspects, or an innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.