Acquisition of a results recording device with a metal arch

This tender demonstrates good foundational quality with clear basic information and adherence to standard procedures, but it is hampered by ambiguities regarding document access and e-submission functionality, alongside a lack of sustainability focus.

The tender defines an open procedure with a reasonable 30-day submission deadline and discloses essential information. It is EU-funded, implying adherence to higher standards. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag, if it implies limited bidder access, is a significant concern for transparency and compliance. The contradiction regarding e-submission also introduces ambiguity.

The tender title and description are clear, and performance conditions refer to specific documents. Document summaries indicate that detailed requirements, including evaluation criteria, are present within the tender documents, despite an automated flag suggesting otherwise.

All basic information, financial details, timelines, and location data are provided. Document summaries suggest comprehensive requirements and criteria are defined. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag limits full verification of the completeness of the actual documents.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the submission deadline is reasonable. The 'E-Procurement' characteristic suggests equal access. Assuming documents are accessible to bidders (despite the AI's flag) and evaluation criteria are objective, the tender appears fair. No indication of tailored requirements.

The contract duration and financing source are clearly specified. However, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' raises significant questions about the practical ease of submission. A direct document URL is also not provided in the basic data.

Key fields are consistently populated, and dates are logical. While there are contradictions between automated checks/flags and document summaries/characteristics, the core tender data itself is largely consistent.

The tender is EU-funded, which often encourages higher standards. However, it explicitly lacks specific green, social, or innovation criteria, representing a missed opportunity for modern sustainable procurement practices.