Requirements Management Software

The tender documentation provides clear technical requirements but suffers from significant deficiencies in evaluation criteria, estimated value disclosure, and e-submission capabilities, impacting overall transparency and fairness.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code clearly, and there are no disputes. However, the missing reveal date makes it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the reveal-to-submission period. The undisclosed estimated value and, critically, the absence of specified evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and eligibility requirements (as per AI extraction) are significant legal compliance issues regarding transparency and due process.

The description of the required software and its technical capabilities, including ISO compliance and license requirements, is very clear and unambiguous. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a major clarity flaw, as bidders cannot understand how their proposals will be assessed.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, duration, and location is provided. Technical requirements are detailed. Nevertheless, the tender is incomplete due to the undisclosed estimated value, and the significant absence of explicit evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and financial requirements (as per AI extraction).

The undisclosed estimated value and the complete lack of evaluation criteria severely undermine the fairness and transparency of the procurement process, making it difficult for bidders to prepare competitive and relevant proposals. The absence of e-submission also creates potential barriers to equal access.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of electronic submission is a practical drawback, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders. The undisclosed estimated value also hinders bidders' ability to gauge the scope and financial viability of the project.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include empty fields for 'Liable Person' and procedure codes, but these do not significantly impact the overall data integrity.

The tender does not include any explicit criteria or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.