Legal Compliance100/100
The tender is for a 'Below threshold - open competition,' implying less stringent formal requirements. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided extract and the complete lack of attached tender documents make it impossible to verify full legal compliance and ensure transparency in the process.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided extract
•Inability to verify full legal compliance due to missing tender documents
Clarity40/100
The project's objective and two-phase structure are clearly described. However, the eligibility requirements for an 'suitably qualified' and 'suitably experienced' organisation are vague without further definition, and the complete absence of explicit evaluation criteria creates significant ambiguity for potential bidders.
•Vague eligibility criteria ('suitably qualified', 'suitably experienced') without defined metrics
•Absence of explicit evaluation criteria for bid assessment
Completeness83/100
This is the most significant weakness. The tender is severely incomplete due to the complete absence of attached documents, detailed evaluation criteria, and specific financial or technical requirements beyond general statements. This makes it impractical for bidders to prepare comprehensive and compliant proposals.
•No tender documents attached, making comprehensive bidding impossible
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria for assessing proposals
Fairness60/100
The absence of detailed requirements, particularly explicit evaluation criteria, and the complete lack of tender documents create a significant risk to fairness. Without clear rules for assessment, the procurement process could be perceived as subjective, potentially disadvantaging some bidders. The vague eligibility criteria could also be applied inconsistently.
•Absence of explicit evaluation criteria compromises fair and objective assessment
•Vague eligibility criteria can lead to subjective interpretation and inconsistent application
Practicality40/100
The project's two-phase approach and timeline (launch by Sept 2026, delivery until March 2028) appear practical for the stated objective. However, the critical lack of detailed information in the tender documents makes it highly impractical for potential suppliers to accurately scope, cost, and prepare a competitive and compliant bid.
•Impractical for bidders to prepare accurate and competitive proposals due to missing detailed requirements and documents
Data Consistency100/100
The provided data is internally consistent regarding the project description, phases, and timeline. The contract duration (25 months) aligns with the phase two end date (March 2028) assuming a contract start around February/March 2026.
Sustainability25/100
The tender explicitly mentions developing a 'sustainable council model' and 'sustainable approaches to youth voice,' indicating a focus on long-term project outcomes. However, the automated check notes 'Not green procurement' and 'No social criteria,' suggesting that broader environmental or social sustainability aspects might not be explicitly integrated into the procurement process itself.
•Lack of explicit 'green procurement' criteria
•Absence of broader social criteria in the procurement process