Legal Compliance65/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes appropriately. However, the absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements is a significant legal compliance concern. The 'Over Sum Limit: No' for a 12M EUR contract also raises questions regarding applicable regulations.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
•Missing financial requirements
Clarity70/100
The service description and AI-extracted eligibility and technical capability requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the explicit absence of evaluation criteria is a major deficiency, preventing bidders from understanding how their proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness60/100
While basic information like title, reference, organization, value, and duration are provided, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of mandatory exclusion grounds, financial requirements, and crucially, evaluation criteria. Details on how the contract is 'Divided into Parts' are also missing.
•Missing mandatory exclusion grounds
•Missing financial requirements
Fairness55/100
The lack of specified evaluation criteria severely impacts the fairness and transparency of the procurement process, as bidders cannot objectively prepare their proposals. While requirements do not appear tailored, this omission creates an uneven playing field. The contradiction regarding e-submission also affects equal access.
•No evaluation criteria specified, impacting transparency and objectivity
•Contradiction regarding e-submission support
Practicality50/100
The contract start date being identical to the submission deadline is highly impractical and indicates a significant administrative error. The contradiction between the implied e-procurement platform and the 'No e-submission' flag also creates uncertainty for bidders.
•Contract start date is identical to the submission deadline
•Contradiction regarding e-submission support
Data Consistency40/100
There is a critical inconsistency where the 'Submission Deadline' and 'Contract Start' dates are identical, which is illogical. A minor discrepancy exists between the main submission deadline and the AI-extracted final tender deadline. The 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside a disclosed value is also inconsistent.
•Contract start date is identical to the submission deadline
•Minor discrepancy in submission deadlines
Sustainability50/100
While the service itself involves renewable heating, the tender documentation does not explicitly incorporate broader green procurement criteria, social aspects, or an innovation focus in its requirements or evaluation, representing a missed opportunity.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social criteria