Provision of media placement for the summer admission campaign and the "Open Doors Day" event

This tender exhibits fundamental flaws in fairness and clarity due to restricted document access and missing evaluation criteria, significantly hindering competition and transparency despite otherwise sound basic information.

The tender correctly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a significant concern regarding transparency and compliance with public procurement principles, potentially hindering fair competition. The lack of summarized mandatory exclusion grounds is also a minor issue.

While the tender's basic description is clear, the explicit flag of 'No evaluation criteria specified' is a critical deficiency. This lack of clarity on how proposals will be judged makes it extremely difficult for bidders to prepare competitive offers. The absence of summarized mandatory exclusion grounds also contributes to ambiguity.

Basic information, financial details, and key dates are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of specified evaluation criteria and the lack of a clear contract duration. While documents are listed, their restricted access and the missing summaries of critical requirements (like mandatory exclusion grounds) further reduce completeness.

This category is severely impacted by the 'Restricted document access' and 'No evaluation criteria specified' flags. These issues fundamentally undermine transparency and equal treatment, making it impossible for all potential bidders to access necessary information or understand the basis of award. While the value is disclosed and e-procurement is indicated, these critical flaws make the tender highly unfair.

The tender supports e-procurement, which is a practical advantage. However, the absence of a clear contract start date and duration creates uncertainty for potential contractors regarding project planning and resource allocation. The 'Restricted document access' also poses a practical barrier.

The tender exhibits good data consistency with logical dates and no reported disputes or suspensions. Key fields are generally populated, though the lack of detailed summaries for certain requirements (e.g., mandatory exclusion grounds) and the missing contract duration are minor inconsistencies in the overall information provided.

The tender shows no explicit integration of green procurement principles, social considerations, or innovation focus. It is also not EU-funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This indicates a complete lack of emphasis on sustainability aspects.