Automated system and laboratory materials for immunohistochemical reactions

This tender is well-documented and clear in its requirements, but significant concerns exist regarding fairness due to potentially tailored specifications and an ambiguous participant limit, alongside notable data inconsistencies.

The tender demonstrates good legal compliance, with reasonable submission deadlines, a clearly defined open procedure, appropriate CPV codes, and no detected disputes. The use of ESPD and mention of adherence to international/EU sanctions further support compliance with national and EU procurement regulations.

The tender's description is clear, and requirements are well-documented and categorized, including detailed technical, financial, and submission criteria. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated (70% price, 30% technical), and a draft framework agreement provides clarity on performance conditions.

The tender is highly complete, providing all essential basic, financial, and timeline information. All 10 associated documents are listed, with required forms clearly identified. Comprehensive requirements, evaluation criteria, and location details are thoroughly defined.

Fairness is significantly compromised by two main factors: the explicit 'Max Participants: 1' for an open procedure, which is highly contradictory and suggests a tailored approach, and the very specific technical requirements (e.g., slide drying, individual processing, titration protocol software) which, while potentially necessary, could limit competition to a very narrow set of suppliers.

The tender supports electronic submission and specifies a clear contract start date and duration. While the estimated value is disclosed, the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag is contradictory. A direct document URL is not provided, though access via the e-procurement portal is implied.

Data consistency is poor due to critical contradictions. The 'Value Classified: Yes' flag directly conflicts with the disclosed 'Estimated Value: 1,200,000.00 EUR'. More significantly, the contract duration of 84 months (7 years) is inconsistent with the financial requirements for 6 years of maintenance costs and 4 years of laboratory material costs, creating ambiguity for bidders.

The tender scores very low on sustainability as it lacks any explicit mention of green procurement, social criteria, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as being EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.