Provision of Simulated Patient Actors

This tender for Simulated Patient Actors is generally well-structured with clear objectives and a reasonable estimated value. However, it lacks detail in crucial areas such as evaluation criteria and specific submission requirements, impacting its overall completeness and practicality.

The tender adheres to standard open procedure and provides a clear CPV code. Deadlines appear reasonable given the contract duration. No disputes are noted. The primary concern is the absence of specified evaluation criteria, which is a significant omission for legal compliance in tender assessment.

The description of the service required is clear and concise, outlining the need for trained actors in simulated clinical scenarios. Technical requirements are adequately detailed. However, the lack of explicit submission and financial requirements introduces ambiguity.

Basic information like title, reference, organization, estimated value, and duration are present. However, the absence of detailed eligibility, financial, and submission requirements, along with no available document content, significantly reduces completeness.

The tender is an open procedure, allowing broad access. The estimated value is disclosed, and criteria appear objective in the technical requirements. The main concern is the lack of specified evaluation criteria, which could lead to subjective assessments. The absence of e-submission details also slightly impacts fairness.

The contract start date and duration are specified. However, the lack of information regarding e-submission, document URLs, and financing details makes the practical execution of the submission process less straightforward for potential bidders.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated logically. There are no noted suspensions or disputes, indicating good data integrity within the provided information.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, suggesting a lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria.