Data-analytiikka Taso 4

This tender is significantly deficient, particularly due to the absence of evaluation criteria and severe documentation errors, which undermine transparency and fairness.

While the procedure type and CPV code are correctly identified, the tender suffers from significant legal compliance issues. The absence of specified evaluation criteria, the 'Page not found' status for a key attachment, and the inclusion of a completely irrelevant document from another agency for a different project are severe breaches of transparency and proper documentation requirements.

The tender's core description is clear, but the overall clarity is severely hampered by the lack of specific eligibility, financial, and detailed technical requirements. Crucially, the complete absence of evaluation criteria makes it impossible for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed, leading to significant ambiguity.

Basic information such as title, organization, value, and duration is present. However, the tender is critically incomplete due to the explicit absence of evaluation criteria and the severe issues with attached documents (one inaccessible, one entirely irrelevant). The high-level nature of other requirements also contributes to a lack of comprehensive detail.

Fairness is severely compromised by the complete lack of evaluation criteria, which prevents objective and transparent assessment of bids. The inability to access all relevant documents (due to 'Page not found' and an irrelevant attachment) further undermines equal access to information. The absence of e-submission also creates potential barriers for some bidders.

The tender provides key dates and financial information, but practical execution is hindered by the lack of electronic submission capabilities. More critically, the issues with tender documents (inaccessible and irrelevant content) create significant practical challenges for potential bidders attempting to understand and prepare a compliant submission.

The tender exhibits significant data consistency issues. There is a clear discrepancy in the estimated value (EUR 4.5M vs. £4.5M). A minor inconsistency exists in the final submission deadline. Most critically, the attachment of a document pertaining to a completely different tender from another organization is a severe data integrity failure.

The tender does not include any explicit requirements or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value objectives.