Broker Services for Private Medical and Dental Insurance and Employee Assistance Programme

This tender is practical and well-structured in its basic information, but critically lacks specified evaluation criteria, significantly impacting clarity and fairness. Sustainability aspects are entirely absent.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type (Open, Below threshold) and CPV codes. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The submission period of 26 days is reasonable for this type of competition. While a 'reveal date' is flagged as missing, the notice itself serves this purpose, and overall compliance with national regulations is implied.

The description of services and AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable. However, the explicit flag 'No evaluation criteria specified' and the instruction to 'Address all evaluation criteria as detailed in the full tender documents' without providing them in the summary is a major deficiency, severely hindering bidders' ability to formulate a compliant and competitive proposal.

All essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, deadlines, estimated value, duration, and location (NUTS code), is present. Documents are listed and summarized. Eligibility, technical, financial, and submission requirements are outlined. The primary gap is the absence of detailed evaluation criteria, which are fundamental for a complete tender package.

The tender supports e-procurement via Delta eSourcing, promoting equal access. The estimated value is disclosed, and the requirements appear generic and not tailored. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly compromises transparency and objectivity, making it difficult for bidders to understand the basis of award.

Electronic submission is clearly supported with direct links and an access code. The contract start date and duration are explicitly stated, and financing information (estimated value) is available. All necessary practical details for bidders to access and respond are well-provided. The automated flag 'No e-submission' is incorrect based on the provided text.

Key fields are consistently populated, and dates (today, submission, contract start) are logical and coherent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The minor ambiguity of 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside a stated 'Estimated Value' is not a significant inconsistency that would impede understanding.

The tender does not include any explicit mentions of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. There is a complete absence of sustainability considerations.