Rafraîchissement de la « Stratégie culturelle en boîte »

This tender for the refresh of 'Cultural Strategy in a Box' is generally well-structured with clear objectives and a reasonable value for the scope. Key concerns lie in the lack of detailed evaluation criteria and the absence of explicit sustainability considerations.

The tender adheres to general regulatory requirements with a clear CPV code and an open competition procedure. Deadlines appear reasonable for the specified value. The main issue identified is the missing reveal date, which is a procedural gap. However, overall compliance seems adequate for a below-threshold tender.

The description of the service required is clear and detailed, outlining the specific objectives of the refresh and the context for the work. Eligibility criteria are broadly stated ('suitably experienced consultant') and technical requirements are directly derived from the project's aims, ensuring good understanding of the scope.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly impacts completeness, as potential bidders cannot fully understand how their submissions will be assessed. The zero documents with content also reduce completeness.

The open competition procedure and the clear disclosure of the estimated value contribute to fairness. The requirement for 'suitably experienced consultant' is objective. There is no indication of tailoring requirements to specific companies. The main drawback is the potential lack of transparency due to missing evaluation criteria, which could be perceived as less fair.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration, and the estimated value is disclosed. However, it lacks explicit information regarding financing and the absence of e-submission details or a direct document URL makes the submission process less practical for potential bidders.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated logically. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The timeline between the deadline and contract start date is realistic, suggesting good internal data consistency.

There are no explicit mentions of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the tender description or characteristics. The tender is not indicated as EU funded. This lack of focus on sustainability aspects results in a moderate score.