Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code appropriately, and there are no reported disputes. However, the explicit absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements, as noted by the AI, represents a notable gap in legal compliance.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
•Missing eligibility requirements
Clarity60/100
The description of the scope of works, sites, and lots is very clear and unambiguous. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a critical flaw, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. The lack of explicit eligibility and exclusion criteria also reduces overall clarity.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•No explicit mandatory exclusion grounds
Completeness70/100
Most basic information, including title, reference, organization, value, and duration, is provided. The scope of works is detailed, and documents are available. Nevertheless, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and eligibility requirements.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
Fairness55/100
The tender's value is disclosed, and requirements appear generic, which supports fairness. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises transparency and objectivity, making it challenging for bidders to compete fairly. The lack of e-submission also limits equal access.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•No e-submission
Practicality65/100
The contract start date and duration are specified, and financing information is available. However, the lack of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback. More critically, the contract start date (Feb 2, 2026) is before the submission deadline (Feb 6, 2026), and the 13-month contract duration conflicts with the grant funding's March 31, 2026, completion deadline, creating severe practical challenges for execution.
•No e-submission
•Contract start date before submission deadline
Data Consistency30/100
This category shows significant deficiencies. The contract start date is listed before the submission deadline, which is a fundamental logical inconsistency. Furthermore, the stated contract duration of 13 months directly contradicts the critical grant funding requirement for substantial completion and invoicing by March 31, 2026. These inconsistencies make the tender highly problematic.
•Contract start date before submission deadline
•Conflicting contract duration and grant funding completion deadline
Sustainability70/100
The tender is inherently green, focusing on solar PV installation, which is a significant positive. The inclusion of optional battery storage proposals indicates a minor focus on innovation. However, there are no explicit social criteria mentioned, and it is not EU funded.
•No explicit social criteria