Legal Compliance65/100
The procedure type is defined, and CPV codes are correctly assigned. However, the absence of detailed evaluation criteria upfront and the use of email for submissions for a contract of this value raise concerns regarding full compliance with modern public procurement transparency and e-procurement mandates. Missing procedure codes are a minor oversight.
•Lack of detailed evaluation criteria upfront
•Submission via email instead of a dedicated e-procurement platform
Clarity60/100
The service description, contract duration, and multi-stage process are generally clear. However, the critical lack of detailed evaluation criteria, which are stated to be in the ITT documentation but not provided, significantly impacts the overall clarity for potential bidders.
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria
•Performance conditions not fully detailed
Completeness55/100
Basic information like title, reference, organization, value, and duration are present. However, the inclusion of an irrelevant document and the absence of the crucial ITT documentation containing detailed requirements and evaluation criteria represent significant gaps. The 'Submission Deadline' field is also inconsistent with the actual PSQ/ITT deadlines.
•Crucial ITT documentation (with detailed requirements and evaluation criteria) is missing
•Inclusion of an irrelevant document (Attachment A-11195)
Fairness50/100
The estimated value is disclosed, and requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company. However, the lack of transparent and detailed evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern. The reliance on email for submissions, rather than a secure e-procurement platform, also creates potential for unequal access and auditability issues.
•Lack of detailed and transparent evaluation criteria
•Submission via email instead of e-procurement platform
Practicality60/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of a dedicated electronic submission platform (relying on email) is a significant practical drawback for both bidders and the contracting authority. A direct document URL is not explicitly provided.
•No dedicated electronic submission platform (email submission only)
•No explicit document URL provided
Data Consistency70/100
Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes. However, the 'Submission Deadline' field in the basic information is inconsistent with the PSQ and ITT deadlines detailed in the description, which is a notable data inconsistency. Missing procedure codes are minor.
•Inconsistent 'Submission Deadline' field with actual tender stage deadlines
•Missing procedure type codes
Sustainability30/100
There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects (beyond TUPE, which is a legal requirement), or innovation focus within the tender documentation. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate modern sustainability considerations.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social criteria