Ulkoiset tilintarkastuspalvelut

This tender for external audit services is generally well-structured, with a clear scope and detailed requirements. However, it lacks explicit evaluation criteria and a reveal date for submissions, impacting completeness and legal compliance.

The tender appears compliant with general procurement regulations, specifying a clear CPV code and detailing regulatory requirements. However, the absence of an explicit reveal date for submitted documents and the lack of specified evaluation criteria could present minor issues regarding procedural transparency and legal certainty. Deadlines, while present, are a significant point of concern.

The description of services, client, and scope is exceptionally clear and detailed, leaving little room for ambiguity. Requirements are well-documented and specific, based on the AI-extracted list. The criteria for success, while not explicitly listed under an 'evaluation' section, are implicitly derived from the extensive technical and regulatory requirements.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. However, the absence of a specific reveal date for received documents and a clear set of evaluation criteria prevents a higher score. While core details are there, the procedural completeness is impacted.

The tender is fair, with full access to documentation (implied by the tender structure), disclosed value, and objective, detailed criteria derived from regulatory and technical needs. The use of a competitive flexible procedure and e-procurement (implied by the system) supports fairness. Requirements are not tailored to specific companies, promoting an open market.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration, and the estimated value is clear. However, the absence of information regarding e-submission mechanisms, direct document URLs, and specific financing details limits its practicality. The implied manual submission process, if e-submission is not explicitly stated, would also be a drawback.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, value, and CPV are populated correctly. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided for submission deadline and contract start are identical, which is illogical and indicates a data inconsistency that needs immediate correction.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation initiatives. It is not indicated as EU funded. While not a mandatory requirement for all tenders, the lack of any such considerations results in a low score in this category.