External Growth Advisor

This tender for an External Growth Advisor is generally well-structured with a clear objective and funding source. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and detailed submission requirements, impacting its overall completeness and practicality.

The tender follows an open procedure, has a clear CPV code, and no disputes are mentioned. Deadlines appear reasonable for the scope, and regulatory compliance is assumed. The primary issue is the lack of specified evaluation criteria, which could indirectly affect legal compliance if fairness in selection is questioned.

The description of the role and its alignment with the ELIF strategy is clear. Requirements related to offering strategic advice and practical support are understandable. The funding source and duration are well-defined.

Most basic information is present, including value, duration, and start date. However, critical details such as specific mandatory exclusion grounds, detailed eligibility requirements beyond the general role description, and most importantly, evaluation criteria are missing. The lack of content in attached documents further reduces completeness.

The tender appears fair, with a disclosed value and an open procedure. Requirements are generally objective, focusing on the ability to provide strategic advice. There are no obvious indicators of tailored requirements for specific companies.

The tender outlines a clear contract start date and duration. Financing is specified through the ELIF. However, the absence of explicit e-submission instructions or a direct URL to submission portals limits practicality. The deadline, while active, could be tight depending on the complexity of required documentation.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated logically. There are no indications of suspensions or disputes. The contract start date logically follows the submission deadline.

The tender does not explicitly mention green procurement, social aspects, or innovation as required criteria. While the funding is from an investment fund, there is no indication of these being core to the procurement process.