Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and the submission period is reasonable. However, the absence of specified mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements, coupled with an irrelevant document and a broken link to a 'Tender Questionnaire,' indicates significant gaps in legal compliance and proper documentation.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
•Missing eligibility requirements
Clarity80/100
The project description and technical requirements are exceptionally clear and detailed, providing a strong understanding of the desired outcome. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a major clarity flaw, leaving bidders uncertain about how their proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100
Basic tender information, project description, budget, and timeline are well-provided. Nevertheless, the tender is incomplete due to the lack of explicit evaluation, eligibility, and exclusion criteria, and the critical failure of a 'Tender Questionnaire' document to load.
•Missing evaluation criteria
•Missing eligibility and exclusion criteria
Fairness65/100
Fairness is significantly compromised by the complete absence of evaluation criteria, which introduces subjectivity into the assessment process. The lack of e-submission and the critical 'Page not found' for a key document also hinder equal access and transparency for all potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No e-submission support
Practicality65/100
While key practical details like budget, contract start, and duration are provided, the lack of electronic submission support and the critical 'Page not found' for a tender document create significant practical barriers for bidders to access full information and submit proposals efficiently.
•No electronic submission supported
•Document URL for key tender documents is broken/missing
Data Consistency70/100
Most key fields are populated, and there are no disputes. However, there is a notable inconsistency between the stated 'Contract Duration' and 'Contract Start' (implying completion by August) and the 'Timetable' in the description which specifies 'October 2026 installation.'
•Inconsistency between stated contract duration/start and project timetable for installation
Sustainability80/100
The tender demonstrates a good focus on sustainability by requiring natural-look equipment, preferring natural shading (trees), and mandating the retention of an existing tree. It also includes a strong social aspect with DDA compliant inclusive play equipment.
•No explicit innovation focus