Procurement of Dielectric Protective Equipment Testing Service

This tender for dielectric protective equipment testing services is generally well-structured and clear, providing comprehensive documentation for a small procurement. While it demonstrates good legal compliance and data consistency, the framework agreement for a single participant and a minor inconsistency in evaluation criteria description slightly detract from overall quality.

The tender appears compliant with national procurement regulations for small procurements, including reasonable deadlines and proper CPV assignment. Mandatory exclusion grounds are clearly referenced. The 'Max Participants: 1' for a framework agreement is unusual but likely permissible for a small procurement under national rules.

The tender description, requirements, and performance conditions are clearly stated and well-documented across the provided materials. AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive. A minor inconsistency exists between the basic info stating 'relative_weighting' for evaluation criteria and the documents explicitly stating 'solely based on the bid price'.

All essential information, including title, organization, value, duration, and location, is provided. Requirements, criteria, and necessary documents are well-defined and attached. The rationale for a single participant framework agreement, while potentially implicit for small procurements, could be more explicitly stated for full transparency.

The tender ensures full document access, discloses the estimated value, and uses objective, price-based evaluation criteria. E-procurement is enabled, promoting equal access. Technical requirements are standard for the service. However, the 'Max Participants: 1' for a framework agreement inherently limits competition, which, while possibly justified for a small procurement, could be perceived as less fair than a multi-supplier framework.

Electronic submission is supported, and contract duration and financing conditions are clearly specified. The location for service delivery is also defined. The explicit document URL is not provided in the basic information, though implied by e-procurement. The single participant framework might limit future flexibility for the contracting authority.

Key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. The only minor inconsistency is the conflicting description of evaluation criteria (relative weighting vs. solely price-based).

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. It is also not EU-funded, as confirmed by automated checks.