Acquisition of multimedia equipment and virtual reality glasses

This tender demonstrates good overall quality with clear requirements and an open procedure, but transparency is somewhat hindered by the undisclosed estimated value and inconsistencies in automated system flags.

The tender defines an open procedure, specifies a reasonable submission deadline (16 days), and includes standard legal provisions like mandatory exclusion grounds. The CPV code appears appropriate. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a transparency concern.

The tender description is clear, and requirements are well-structured across multiple documents. Evaluation criteria (lowest price without VAT) are explicitly stated for each part, contradicting an automated flag. Performance conditions are clearly linked to technical specifications and the draft contract.

Most essential information, including title, organization, deadlines, duration, and detailed requirements (referenced in separate documents), is provided. However, the estimated value is a significant missing piece of information for a comprehensive tender.

The tender benefits from an open procedure, objective 'lowest price' evaluation criteria, and e-procurement support, promoting equal access. The submission deadline is reasonable. The undisclosed estimated value, however, reduces transparency and could disadvantage some bidders. The 'Restricted document access' flag is concerning, but contradicted by 'Documents available' and summaries, suggesting potential system ambiguity rather than actual restriction.

Electronic submission is supported, which enhances practicality. Financing information (EU Funded) and contract duration are specified. However, the exact contract start date is not provided, and a direct document URL is not explicitly listed, though documents are available.

While core dates and status are consistent, there are notable contradictions between the automated check results/flags and the tender content. Specifically, evaluation criteria and e-submission are flagged as missing/not supported, despite being clearly present. The 'Liable Person' field contains an address, not a person's name.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards. However, it lacks explicit criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus, representing a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles.