St Gregory's College - IT-hallintapalvelukumppani

This tender outlines a comprehensive ICT managed service requirement for St Gregory's College, with a clear description of services and a disclosed budget. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and detailed submission requirements, impacting its overall quality.

The tender appears to comply with general procurement principles, including the provision of a CPV code and a disclosed estimated value. The procedure type 'Competitive flexible procedure' is mentioned, suggesting a structured process. The absence of dispute information further supports a moderate compliance score. However, the lack of a reveal date for the full tender documents is a minor procedural gap.

The description of the required ICT managed service is detailed and covers a wide range of responsibilities, including service desk, local staffing, strategic advice, infrastructure management, and innovation. The eligibility and technical capability requirements are well-extracted and clearly delineated, providing a good understanding of the expected provider's profile.

Essential information such as the title, reference number, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are present. The submission deadline is specified. However, the critical absence of detailed submission requirements and evaluation criteria, along with only 0 out of 5 documents having content or summaries, significantly reduces completeness.

The tender discloses the estimated value and specifies an open-ended set of requirements, which generally promotes fairness. The use of a 'Competitive flexible procedure' suggests an intention to assess multiple bids. The absence of explicitly tailored requirements for specific companies contributes to a high fairness score. The main concern is the lack of transparency regarding how bids will be evaluated.

The tender specifies a clear contract start date and duration. However, the lack of explicit mention of e-submission methods and the absence of information on financing sources limit the practicality score. While a URL for documents is not explicitly stated, the mention of 5 tender documents implies they are accessible.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are consistently populated. The dates provided, although the contract start and submission deadline are the same, do not present immediate logical contradictions within the given information. There are no indications of suspension or disputes.

The tender mentions an expectation for the provider to support and drive innovation, particularly around AI and environmental sustainability. While this is a positive step, it is not explicitly framed as a mandatory requirement or a quantifiable criterion. The absence of other explicit green procurement or social aspects, and the fact that it's not flagged as EU funded, results in a moderate sustainability score.