Procurement of Design Services

This tender for design services is generally well-structured with clear evaluation criteria and electronic submission. However, a significant inconsistency exists between the stated 'Open Procedure' and the 'Negotiation Allowed' characteristic, which could lead to legal and clarity issues.

The tender defines the procedure as 'A' (Open Procedure), but also lists 'Negotiation Allowed' under characteristics. Open procedures typically do not permit negotiation on initial bids, creating a significant legal ambiguity and potential non-compliance with procurement regulations if not clarified or if the procedure type is misclassified. The use of ESPD and reasonable deadlines are positive aspects.

The description, requirements, and evaluation criteria (portfolio, test work, hourly rate with clear weightings) are generally clear. However, the procedural inconsistency regarding negotiation within an open procedure creates ambiguity for potential bidders on how the process will unfold.

All essential information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, classification, and procurement characteristics, is provided. Requirements, evaluation criteria, and supporting documents (ESPD guide, compliance conditions, evaluation criteria, main tender document) are well-defined and referenced.

The tender demonstrates good fairness with disclosed value, reasonable deadlines, objective and transparent evaluation criteria, and enabled e-procurement. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. The potential for negotiation in an open procedure, if not clearly defined, could introduce minor fairness concerns regarding transparency.

The tender scores highly on practicality, supporting electronic submission, providing a clear contract start date (indicative), specifying EU funding, and clearly defining the contract duration and value limits. Document access is implied through the e-procurement portal.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, the significant inconsistency between the 'Open Procedure' type and the 'Negotiation Allowed' characteristic represents a critical data inconsistency in the procedural definition.

The tender lacks explicit criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. While it is EU funded, which often implies higher standards, no specific sustainability requirements are integrated into the tender documentation.