Purchase of antibodies required for immunohistochemical studies for the pathology department

This tender is generally well-structured and clear, providing comprehensive documentation and transparent evaluation criteria. While strong in clarity and data consistency, a specific equipment requirement raises moderate fairness concerns, and sustainability aspects are not addressed.

The tender demonstrates good legal compliance with clearly defined procedures, appropriate CPV codes, and no indicated disputes. The submission deadline is reasonable, and e-procurement features align with modern regulations. The only minor issue is the missing NUTS code.

The tender description is clear and unambiguous, specifying the purpose and duration. Requirements are well-documented, and evaluation criteria, including cost (80-90%) and quality indicators (10% each for laboratory verification and no additional consumables), are explicitly stated in Document 4, contradicting the automated check.

The tender provides all basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and duration (36 months). All required forms and documents are listed and summarized. The primary omission is the NUTS code.

The tender offers full document access, discloses the estimated value, and provides reasonable deadlines. Evaluation criteria are objective and transparent, and e-procurement ensures equal access. However, the explicit mention of 'Ventana BenchMark Ultra immunosteiner' in the description could potentially limit competition to suppliers compatible with this specific brand of equipment, raising a moderate concern about market tailoring.

Electronic submission and e-procurement are fully supported, enhancing practicality. The duration is clearly specified. While a direct document URL is not provided (only the e-procurement portal), and financing conditions are stated to be in the contract, these are minor points given the overall electronic accessibility.

Key fields are largely populated, and there are no indications of suspension or disputes. Dates are logical and consistent. The automated check's flag regarding missing evaluation criteria was incorrect, as Document 4 clearly outlines them.

The tender does not include any explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. There is no indication of EU funding that might typically drive higher sustainability standards.