Usługi psychologiczne

This tender for psychology services is generally well-structured with clear technical requirements, but lacks specific evaluation criteria and details on document access, impacting its overall fairness and practicality.

The tender adheres to basic legal requirements with a specified CPV code and a clear procedure for open competition below the threshold. Deadlines are provided, though the submission deadline might be considered tight given the scope. No disputes are noted. The absence of a reveal date is a minor procedural oversight.

The description of services is detailed and specific, outlining the expected activities and the desired provider profile. Technical capabilities are clearly articulated. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria leaves some ambiguity on how proposals will be assessed.

Essential information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration are present. The CPV code is provided. However, the crucial aspect of accessing the full tender documents is not detailed, and the AI-extracted requirement for services to be delivered in multiple languages (Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Lithuanian) is not explicitly stated in the provided tender text, raising questions about its origin and accuracy.

The requirement for a 'team of psychologists rather than independent practitioners or a consortium' could be perceived as slightly restrictive, though it is justified by the need for continuity and resilience. The value is disclosed, and the process is open competition. However, the lack of explicit evaluation criteria and the limited access to document content hinder full transparency.

The tender specifies a contract start date and duration. However, the absence of information regarding e-submission and the URL for tender documents significantly reduces practicality. Financing information is not detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated logically. The status is active, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. The contract start date and duration are consistent.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which limits its sustainability score.