Legal Compliance100/100
The tender description mentions 'mandatory exclusion grounds' but states 'No specific mandatory exclusion grounds are detailed.' This is a significant legal oversight, as standard exclusion grounds are typically required by public procurement law. The absence of evaluation criteria also raises concerns about compliance with principles of transparency and equal treatment.
•Absence of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds.
•Lack of explicit evaluation criteria, which is a fundamental requirement for a legally sound procurement process.
Clarity40/100
While the general description of the goods sought and the re-tender context is clear, the actual requirements for bidders are extremely vague. The repeated phrase 'No specific... are detailed' for exclusion, financial, and technical requirements, coupled with the complete absence of tender documents, renders the tender highly unclear for potential bidders.
•Vague eligibility, technical, and financial requirements.
•Absence of tender documents makes it impossible to understand the full scope and detailed submission instructions.
Completeness83/100
This tender is critically incomplete. The explicit mention of 'DOCUMENTS (0 total)' and 'No document content available' means that the essential tender documentation, which would contain detailed requirements, specifications, and evaluation criteria, is entirely missing from the provided information. This makes it impossible for any bidder to prepare a compliant submission.
•Complete absence of tender documents.
•Missing detailed specifications for Lot 2b and Lot 6.
Fairness60/100
The tender's fairness is severely compromised by the lack of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria. Without clear, objective criteria for assessing bids, the Authority risks subjective decision-making, which undermines the principles of equal treatment and transparency. The absence of mandatory exclusion grounds also creates an uneven playing field.
•Lack of clear and objective evaluation criteria.
•Absence of specific financial and technical requirements could lead to arbitrary assessment.
Practicality40/100
From a bidder's perspective, this tender is impractical to respond to. Without any tender documents, detailed specifications, or evaluation criteria, it is impossible to formulate a compliant and competitive bid. The re-tender status due to 'no compliant bids' in the previous round, combined with the current lack of documentation, suggests fundamental issues in the procurement process that hinder practical participation.
•Impossibility for bidders to prepare a compliant bid due to missing documents and detailed requirements.
•The re-tender status indicates previous practical difficulties for bidders.
Data Consistency100/100
There is a minor inconsistency regarding the contract duration. The 'Timeline' states 'Contract Duration: 27 months,' while the 'Description' clarifies '26 months with an option to extend for a period or periods of up to a maximum of 12 months,' implying a potential total of 38 months. While minor, it could cause slight confusion.
•Slight discrepancy between 'Contract Duration' in the timeline (27 months) and the detailed description (26 months + up to 12 months extension).
Sustainability0/100
The tender information provides no indication of any sustainability, green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. This is a missed opportunity to integrate broader public policy objectives into the procurement process.
•Absence of green procurement criteria.
•Absence of social criteria.