Repeated procurement - Classes for adults to promote physical activity

This tender is of moderate quality, presenting clear requirements but suffering from significant deficiencies such as the absence of evaluation criteria, estimated value, and contract duration. These omissions notably impact transparency and fairness for potential bidders.

The tender correctly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and the submission deadline is reasonable. Its EU funding suggests adherence to broader regulations. However, the undisclosed estimated value and the flagged 'Restricted document access' are significant transparency and compliance concerns.

The tender's description is clear, and its division into parts enhances understanding. AI-extracted requirements are well-detailed for exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission aspects. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly hinders clarity regarding how bids will be assessed.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, and deadlines are provided, and all 6 tender documents are listed and summarized. However, the estimated value and contract duration are not disclosed, and evaluation criteria are missing, representing significant gaps in essential information for bidders.

The tender's fairness is significantly compromised by the undisclosed estimated value and the absence of clear evaluation criteria, which prevents bidders from understanding the basis of award. The 'Restricted document access' flag, if true for actual bidders, would also severely limit equal opportunity. Requirements do not appear overtly tailored.

The tender specifies the opening place as an electronic system, suggesting e-procurement is intended. However, the 'No e-submission' flag creates a practical ambiguity for bidders. The absence of a specified contract start date and duration makes it difficult for potential suppliers to plan and commit resources effectively.

Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the tender exhibits inconsistencies with key fields, such as the undisclosed estimated value, missing contract duration, and the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag.

The tender is identified as EU Funded, which often implies higher standards. However, it explicitly lacks specific criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, indicating a missed opportunity to integrate broader sustainability goals.