Legal Compliance100/100
The tender adheres to standard legal frameworks by using an Open procedure and referencing ESPD (Scotland) for mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility criteria. The NUTS code is appropriate for the contracting authority's location.
Clarity60/100
The overall purpose and lot structure are clearly defined. However, the rules for awarding multiple lots are complex and could lead to misinterpretation. The use of EUR for the overall estimated value and GBP for lot-specific values introduces a minor inconsistency.
•Complex and potentially confusing rules for awarding multiple lots.
•Inconsistency in currency used for overall estimated value (EUR) versus lot-specific values (GBP).
Completeness100/100
While basic tender information is provided, there is a significant omission of explicit evaluation criteria and detailed technical/financial requirements beyond general references to ESPD (Scotland). This lack of detail hinders bidders' ability to prepare comprehensive proposals.
•Absence of explicit evaluation criteria (e.g., quality vs. price weighting, specific sub-criteria).
•Lack of detailed technical and financial requirements, relying solely on general ESPD (Scotland) references.
Fairness80/100
The division into lots and the restrictions on awarding multiple lots (e.g., Lot 1 excludes Lot 2/3, and only one 1st rank for Lot 2/3) are positive aspects designed to promote competition and prevent single supplier dominance. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria severely compromises the transparency and fairness of the evaluation process.
•Lack of explicit evaluation criteria undermines transparency and fairness for bidders.
Practicality40/100
The framework agreement approach and lotting strategy are practical for managing diverse asbestos services across an estate. Self-certification via ESPD (Scotland) streamlines the initial application. However, the complexity of the lot award restrictions might pose administrative challenges.
•Complexity of lot award restrictions could lead to administrative difficulties and bidder confusion.
Data Consistency100/100
There is an inconsistency between the overall estimated value stated in EUR and the sum of the lot-specific values stated in GBP. Furthermore, the summary for 'Document 1' is entirely irrelevant to this tender, indicating a significant data integrity issue in the provided information.
•Discrepancy between overall estimated value (EUR) and sum of lot-specific values (GBP).
•Summary for 'Document 1' is completely irrelevant to the tender.
Sustainability0/100
The tender does not include any explicit requirements or considerations related to environmental, social, or innovation aspects, representing a missed opportunity for a public sector body.
•Absence of green procurement criteria.
•Absence of social criteria.