Legal Compliance75/100
The tender appears to comply with basic legal requirements, with a clearly defined open procedure and appropriate CPV codes. The submission period is exceptionally long, far exceeding minimum requirements. However, the exact reveal date is not provided, and there's a minor inconsistency regarding the classification of the estimated value. No disputes or suspensions are reported.
•Missing tender reveal date
•"Value Classified: Yes" contradicts the disclosed estimated value
Clarity60/100
The description of the services, contract structure (two lots, staggered mobilisation, growth potential), and key performance expectations (fixed price, input hours, quality, reporting) is generally clear. However, a critical omission is the lack of explicit evaluation criteria, which significantly hinders bidders' understanding of how their proposals will be assessed.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified
Completeness65/100
The tender provides essential information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and location. All listed documents are available. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria is a significant gap. Furthermore, the tender references a "PSQ document" and "cleaning & caretaking specification" for more information, implying that the provided text is not fully comprehensive on its own.
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria
•Relies on external "PSQ document" and "cleaning & caretaking specification" for full details, which are not provided in the current context
Fairness40/100
While the tender offers full document access and discloses the estimated value, the complete absence of explicit evaluation criteria severely compromises the fairness and transparency of the procurement process. Bidders cannot objectively understand how their proposals will be judged, leading to potential bias. The requirement for contractors to bid for both lots, while strategically explained, could also limit participation from smaller, specialized suppliers.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified, which impacts objectivity and transparency
•Requirement to bid for both lots may limit competition
Practicality90/100
The tender demonstrates high practicality by supporting electronic submission via a specified eSourcing portal and providing direct URLs. Key dates such as contract start and duration are clearly defined, and financing information (estimated value, fixed-price nature) is available.
Data Consistency70/100
Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported suspensions or disputes. Dates are logical and consistent across the different contract lots. However, some fields like "Liable Person" and the "Code" for Type/Procedure are empty. A notable inconsistency is "Value Classified: Yes" appearing alongside a clearly stated "Estimated Value: 11,500,000.00 EUR".
•Empty fields (Liable Person, Type/Procedure codes)
•Contradiction between "Value Classified: Yes" and the disclosed estimated value
Sustainability75/100
The tender explicitly states that the Trusts have strategic objectives regarding both Sustainability and Social Value, and expects suppliers to evidence how their services will complement these objectives. This is a positive inclusion. However, the tender does not explicitly mention an innovation focus, nor does it detail specific green procurement criteria beyond the general mention of sustainability. It is not EU funded.
•Lack of explicit innovation focus
•Specific sustainability and social value criteria are not detailed in the provided information