Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code appropriately, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the absence of specific mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and particularly evaluation criteria in the provided information raises legal compliance concerns for a full tender, even if mitigated by its 'planning' status.
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds provided.
•No specific eligibility requirements provided.
Clarity80/100
The project description and AI-extracted technical capability requirements are clear and unambiguous, detailing the scope and expertise needed. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria significantly reduces the overall clarity of how proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
Completeness70/100
Basic information like title, organization, reference, deadlines, and duration are present. However, the estimated value is not disclosed and classified, and crucial elements such as mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria are missing. The listed 'documents' appear to be general notices rather than comprehensive tender documents.
•Estimated value not disclosed and classified.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, and financial requirements.
Fairness55/100
The lack of disclosed estimated value, absence of evaluation criteria, and no e-submission support significantly undermine the fairness and transparency of the procurement process. While the technical requirements themselves do not appear tailored, these procedural gaps create an uneven playing field for potential bidders.
•Estimated value not disclosed and classified.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
Practicality65/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, which is practical. However, the absence of e-submission capabilities and the classified estimated value present practical hurdles for bidders in preparing and submitting their proposals.
•No e-submission support.
•Estimated value not disclosed and classified.
Data Consistency70/100
The existing data, such as dates and project description, is logical and consistent. There are no disputes or suspensions. However, several key fields like 'Liable Person', procedure codes, estimated value, and various requirement types are unpopulated or missing, indicating gaps in data completeness.
•Several key fields (e.g., Liable Person, procedure codes, estimated value, specific requirement types) are unpopulated or missing.
Sustainability50/100
The tender does not explicitly mention green procurement, social aspects, or a specific innovation focus beyond the inherent methodological innovation of developing an online survey. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•No explicit green procurement criteria.
•No explicit social criteria.