Acquisition of a social media account management tool

This tender is generally well-structured with comprehensive documentation, but it suffers from significant issues regarding fairness due to a restrictive technical requirement and a lack of explicit evaluation criteria.

Legal compliance is generally good, with an open procedure, reasonable deadlines, and proper CPV codes. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria poses a risk to transparency and equal treatment, which are fundamental legal principles in public procurement.

The tender description and most requirements are clear and well-documented, with forms provided in two languages. However, the critical absence of explicit evaluation criteria significantly reduces overall clarity, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. The 'world-class brands' requirement also introduces subjectivity.

The tender provides most essential information, including basic details, financial data, and a comprehensive set of submission documents. The availability of 16 documents, many in dual languages, is a strength. However, the lack of explicit evaluation criteria and the failure to generate a summary for one document (Document 16) indicate minor gaps.

Fairness is severely compromised by the technical requirement for bidders to demonstrate experience with 'at least five world-class brands within the last three years.' This criterion is highly subjective and appears tailored, significantly limiting competition. The absence of transparent evaluation criteria further exacerbates concerns about objective assessment and equal treatment.

The tender supports e-procurement, which enhances practicality. The duration of the contract is clearly specified. However, the contract start date is not provided, and there is a minor inconsistency between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the automated check's 'No e-submission' flag, which could cause confusion.

Key fields are generally populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a notable inconsistency between the stated 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the automated check indicating 'No e-submission'. Additionally, the 'Restricted document access' flag contradicts the presence of 16 summarized documents, suggesting potential data discrepancies.

The tender does not include any explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. Therefore, its contribution to sustainability objectives is minimal.