Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes appropriately. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a significant legal compliance issue regarding transparency and equal treatment. The missing reveal date and empty codes for procedure type are minor data quality issues.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Missing reveal date
Clarity80/100
The description of the required services and the AI-extracted technical requirements are generally clear and unambiguous. However, the critical omission of evaluation criteria severely impacts the clarity for potential bidders on how their proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100
Basic information, financial details, and duration are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the critical absence of evaluation criteria. Additionally, sections for 'MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS' and 'SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS' are present but empty, and some basic fields like 'Liable Person' and procedure codes are missing.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Empty sections for mandatory exclusion grounds and submission requirements
Fairness55/100
The most significant concern for fairness is the complete absence of evaluation criteria, which severely compromises transparency and objectivity. Additionally, several technical requirements (e.g., 'excellent working relationships with the majority of major AV suppliers,' 'substantial in-house spares holding,' 'custom service desk software/database,' 'fully manufacturer-trained audio visual support engineers') are highly restrictive and appear to favor large, established integrators, potentially limiting competition. The lack of e-submission also presents a barrier to equal access.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Restrictive requirements favoring large, established companies
Practicality65/100
The tender specifies the contract start date and duration. However, the absence of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders.
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. Minor inconsistencies include the missing 'Liable Person' and empty codes for the procedure type, as well as the missing reveal date.
•Missing 'Liable Person' field
•Empty codes for procedure type
Sustainability50/100
The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•No green procurement criteria
•No social criteria