Legal Compliance80/100
The tender, being a preliminary market engagement (PME), appropriately lacks formal tender procedure codes, which is consistent with its 'planning' status. The CPV code is correctly assigned, and there are no disputes. The 'Value Classified: Yes' flag is a data inconsistency, but the value is explicitly disclosed, mitigating legal concern.
•Contradictory 'Value Classified: Yes' flag despite explicit value disclosure.
Clarity90/100
The description of services is highly detailed and unambiguous, covering all aspects from public areas to guest rooms, equipment, and consumables. AI-extracted requirements are clear and directly reflect the notice content. The absence of evaluation criteria is expected for a preliminary market engagement.
Completeness75/100
Most essential information for a preliminary market engagement is provided, including title, reference, organization, detailed description, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location. However, key fields such as 'Type', 'Procedure', and 'Liable Person' are unpopulated, which are minor gaps even for a PME.
•Missing 'Type', 'Procedure', and 'Liable Person' fields.
Fairness90/100
The tender demonstrates high fairness, offering full document access via an e-sourcing portal and disclosing the estimated contract value. The requirements are generic and not tailored to a specific company, promoting broad market participation. The 12-day response period for a PME questionnaire is reasonable.
Practicality80/100
Electronic submission is fully supported through the Delta eSourcing portal, with direct links provided. The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, enhancing practicality for potential bidders. Financing information is limited to the estimated value, which is common.
Data Consistency60/100
Several key fields are unpopulated ('Type', 'Procedure', 'Liable Person'), and there is a direct contradiction where the value is explicitly disclosed but also flagged as 'Value Classified: Yes'. Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no disputes.
•Empty 'Type', 'Procedure', and 'Liable Person' fields.
•Contradiction between 'Value Classified: Yes' and explicit value disclosure.
Sustainability20/100
The tender completely lacks any mention or integration of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•No green procurement criteria.
•No social criteria.