Supply of a multifunctional atomic force microscope

This tender for a multifunctional atomic force microscope demonstrates good procedural clarity and basic information, but is significantly hampered by critical issues including undisclosed estimated value, restricted document access, and a complete lack of specified evaluation criteria, severely impacting fairness and transparency.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes clearly, and there are no reported disputes. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which, while not always a legal breach, reduces transparency. The 'Restricted document access' flag is a concern, potentially impacting compliance with full disclosure requirements if bidders cannot access essential documents.

The tender description is clear, and requirements are structured by referring to specific documents. However, the critical issue of 'No evaluation criteria specified' significantly reduces clarity, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their offers will be assessed, despite one document summary mentioning them.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided. Documents are referenced. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the absence of specified evaluation criteria represents a significant gap in the tender documentation.

Fairness is severely compromised by the 'Restricted document access' and the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria, which makes the evaluation process opaque and potentially subjective. The undisclosed estimated value further reduces transparency and equal opportunity for bidders.

The tender indicates E-Procurement and specifies the contract duration. However, the lack of a direct document URL, absence of a contract start date, and undisclosed financing information reduce the practicality for potential bidders.

While most key fields are populated and dates are logical, there are significant contradictions. The most critical is the explicit flag of 'No evaluation criteria specified' versus the document summary stating it contains them. Other inconsistencies include E-Procurement vs. no e-submission, and restricted document access vs. documents available.

The tender does not include any specific requirements or considerations for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, nor is it indicated as EU-funded.