Legal Compliance90/100
The RFI clearly defines its purpose and limitations, adhering to principles of market engagement without being a formal tender. The 31-day response period is reasonable for gathering market insights. CPV codes are appropriate, and there are no disputes.
Clarity95/100
The document is exceptionally clear, explicitly stating its nature as an RFI and not an invitation to bid. It clearly outlines the type of information sought and explains why typical tender requirements (like exclusion grounds or evaluation criteria for award) are not applicable.
Completeness85/100
Most essential information for an RFI is provided, including title, organization, reference, description, deadlines, and duration. The classified value and one failed document download are minor completeness issues.
•Estimated value is classified
•One document failed to download
Fairness80/100
The RFI explicitly states that responding does not advantage or disadvantage any supplier in future procurement, promoting a fair and level playing field. Requirements are generic and not tailored. However, the lack of e-submission and classified value are minor concerns for equal access and transparency.
•No electronic submission support
•Estimated value is classified
Practicality60/100
The primary practical concern is the absence of electronic submission support, which is a significant drawback for market engagement in 2026. The classified value also slightly reduces practicality for potential respondents.
•No electronic submission support
•Estimated value is classified
Data Consistency90/100
All provided data points are consistent with the RFI's nature and purpose. Dates are logical, and the 'None' designation for procedure type is appropriate for a preliminary market engagement.
Sustainability65/100
The RFI explicitly seeks insights into 'innovations' within the stationery supply sector, which is a positive aspect related to sustainability. However, it lacks explicit criteria or requests for information regarding green procurement or social aspects.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social criteria