Legal Compliance65/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes appropriately, and there are no reported disputes. However, the absence of a tender reveal date and the contradictory statement regarding value classification ('Value Classified: Yes' despite a disclosed estimated value) raise concerns about full compliance with transparency requirements.
•Missing tender reveal date
•Contradictory information on value classification
Clarity50/100
While the general description of the framework and lots is clear, the tender critically lacks specified evaluation criteria. The AI-extracted requirements are minimal, and detailed performance conditions or substantive technical requirements for the works are not provided in the summary, significantly impacting overall clarity.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Lack of detailed substantive requirements for works
Completeness60/100
Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are provided. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria and detailed substantive requirements makes the tender incomplete. Some fields like 'Liable Person' are empty, and codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure' are missing.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Lack of detailed substantive requirements
Fairness45/100
The lack of specified evaluation criteria is a major concern for fairness, as it compromises objectivity and transparency in the selection process. The contradictory information on value classification also detracts from transparency. While e-procurement is enabled, the fundamental absence of clear assessment rules is a significant drawback.
•No evaluation criteria specified (major impact on fairness)
•Contradictory information on value classification
Practicality80/100
The tender supports electronic submission via a dedicated portal, and key dates like contract start and duration are clearly specified. The estimated value is also available. The primary minor issue is the absence of a direct document URL, requiring navigation through the portal.
•No direct document URL provided
Data Consistency65/100
There are several inconsistencies, including the contradiction between 'Value Classified: Yes' and the disclosed estimated value. The 'Liable Person' field is empty, and codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure' are missing. A minor inconsistency exists between the stated '49 months' duration and 'initial four-year period' (48 months).
•Contradictory 'Value Classified' status
•Empty key fields (Liable Person, Type/Procedure codes)
Sustainability20/100
The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. There is no indication of EU funding, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No social aspects mentioned