Lone Worker Monitoring and Alarms

This tender exhibits significant quality issues, primarily due to a critical contradiction regarding its status (active vs. terminated) and the absence of essential legal, financial, and evaluation criteria, severely impacting its transparency and fairness.

Legal compliance is severely compromised by the explicit lack of mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and financial requirements for bidders. The undisclosed value and missing evaluation criteria further reduce transparency. Most critically, an official document states the procurement is terminated, directly contradicting its 'active' status, which is a major legal and procedural flaw.

While the core service description is clear, the overall clarity is significantly hampered by the absence of crucial information such as mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, financial criteria, and detailed evaluation criteria. This leaves bidders with insufficient guidance on fundamental aspects of the tender.

The tender is incomplete due to the explicit absence of mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria. The estimated value is also not disclosed, and one tender document failed to download. The contradiction between the 'active' status and a termination notice in an official document represents a critical gap in completeness.

Fairness is significantly undermined by the undisclosed estimated value and the complete absence of evaluation criteria, making it impossible for bidders to understand how their submissions will be assessed. The failure of one document to download and the contradiction regarding e-submission further detract from equal access and transparency.

Practicality is moderate, as key dates and an e-tendering platform are mentioned. However, the classified value, the critical contradiction of the tender's status (active vs. terminated), and a failed document download create significant practical hurdles and uncertainty for potential bidders.

Data consistency is very poor. The most severe issue is the direct contradiction between the tender's 'active' status and an official document stating its formal termination. Additionally, there are conflicting project references (008571-2026 vs. 008979) and a discrepancy regarding e-submission support.

The tender does not include any explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus, indicating a lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria.