Legal Compliance100/100
The tender follows an open competition procedure for a below-threshold value, which is generally compliant with procurement principles. However, the explicit statement that no mandatory exclusion grounds are provided in the tender information is a significant omission.
•Absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided tender information.
Clarity40/100
The brief description of the requirement is clear, including definitions for 'capacity' and 'capability.' Instructions for portal submission are also clear. However, critical information like detailed evaluation criteria is only referenced as being in an external document.
•Detailed evaluation criteria are not provided in the tender notice, only referenced as being in the ITQ document, hindering bidder understanding.
•Absence of explicitly stated eligibility requirements creates ambiguity for potential bidders.
Completeness83/100
The provided information is a brief notice rather than a complete tender package. Key documents such as the full ITQ, detailed specifications, and terms and conditions are explicitly stated as missing from the provided content.
•Critical tender documents (e.g., full ITQ, detailed specifications, terms and conditions) are not included in the provided information.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and detailed eligibility requirements.
Fairness60/100
The open competition procedure promotes fairness. However, the lack of explicit eligibility criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and detailed evaluation criteria in the provided notice could impede fair competition by creating uncertainty for bidders.
•Lack of explicit eligibility criteria and mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided information may lead to uncertainty and potential for subjective interpretation.
•Absence of detailed evaluation criteria in the tender notice prevents bidders from fully understanding the basis of award, potentially impacting fair competition.
Practicality40/100
The use of an eSourcing portal for submission is practical. The 10-month contract duration for the scope described appears reasonable. However, the reliance on external portal access for all attached information means the provided notice alone is insufficient for a comprehensive understanding.
•The provided tender notice is incomplete, requiring bidders to access an external portal for all essential documents, which is a practical barrier for initial assessment.
•The instruction to review 'all attached information' is problematic given 'DOCUMENTS (0 total)' in the provided content.
Data Consistency100/100
The estimated value is 120,000.00 EUR, while the proposed budget is £100,000 excluding VAT. These figures are broadly consistent given currency conversion rates, but the use of different currencies could cause minor confusion.
•The estimated value is stated in EUR (120,000.00 EUR) while the budget limit is in GBP (£100,000), which, while broadly consistent, introduces a minor currency discrepancy.
Sustainability25/100
The tender explicitly mentions promoting a 'sustainable methodology' for future research, indicating a focus on the longevity and value of the study's output.
•The tender lacks broader environmental or social sustainability criteria, as flagged by automated checks, beyond the methodological sustainability of the research itself.