Youth Guarantee Trailblazer - Project Evaluation

This tender for Youth Guarantee project evaluation is well-described with key financial and timeline details, but critically lacks explicit evaluation criteria and specific mandatory exclusion grounds, impacting fairness and completeness.

The procedure type and CPV codes are clearly defined, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the absence of a clear reveal date and the lack of specific mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary represent minor compliance gaps.

The project description is clear and unambiguous, and the AI-extracted requirements are understandable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly reduces the clarity regarding how bids will be assessed.

Most basic information, including title, reference, organization, value, duration, and location, is provided. Documents are attached and summarized. Nevertheless, the explicit lack of evaluation criteria and the 'no specific' for mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements indicate notable gaps in completeness.

The tender value is disclosed, and electronic submission via the Atamis portal is indicated, promoting equal access. The SME eligibility requirement, while specific, is a common policy choice. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria severely undermines the objectivity and transparency essential for a fair procurement process.

Electronic submission is supported, and key dates like contract start and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of a direct document URL in the provided text and limited detailed financing information slightly reduce the overall practicality for potential bidders.

Key fields are largely populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. Minor empty fields for 'Liable Person' and procedure codes do not significantly impact overall data consistency.

While the Youth Guarantee project itself has strong social objectives, the tender for the evaluation service does not explicitly incorporate green, social, or innovation criteria for the service provider or the procurement process, representing a missed opportunity.