Legal Compliance65/100
The procedure type and CPV codes are correctly assigned, and the submission period (28 days from today) is reasonable. However, the tender lacks explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, and the 'Over Sum Limit: No' for a value of 432,000 EUR for a UK sub-central authority is ambiguous and potentially inconsistent with standard thresholds. The actual reveal date is also missing.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds
•Ambiguity regarding 'Over Sum Limit' for the stated value
Clarity80/100
The project description, scope of services, and technical requirements are clearly articulated and understandable. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major deficiency that significantly impacts the clarity of the procurement process for potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100
Basic information such as title, organization, value, and deadlines are provided. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria and the lack of explicitly listed detailed tender documents (e.g., full ITT, comprehensive specifications) beyond general notices reduce completeness. There's also a contradiction regarding the contract being 'Divided into Parts' versus a 'single professional services contract'.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Contradiction: 'Divided into Parts' vs 'single professional services contract'
Fairness85/100
The use of an electronic tendering system and generally appropriate technical requirements contribute to fairness. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a significant concern, as it undermines transparency and equal treatment among bidders, making the assessment process opaque.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission is clearly supported via the Jaggaer portal, and key dates like contract start and duration are specified. The main practical concern is the lack of explicitly listed comprehensive tender documents (e.g., full instructions to tenderers, detailed specifications) that bidders would need to prepare a thorough and compliant submission.
•Lack of explicitly listed comprehensive tender documents beyond general notices
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there are notable inconsistencies, such as 'Characteristics: Divided into Parts' contradicting 'single professional services contract', and 'Value Classified: Yes' contradicting the explicitly stated estimated value.
•Contradiction: 'Divided into Parts' vs 'single professional services contract'
•Contradiction: 'Value Classified: Yes' vs explicitly stated value
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly mentions compliance with the Authority’s sustainability requirements, which is a positive aspect. However, there is no clear focus on broader social aspects or innovation beyond BIM, which could be further developed.
•Lack of explicit social aspects focus
•Limited explicit innovation focus