Usluga podrške emocionalnom blagostanju i zdravlju

This tender for emotional wellbeing and health support services is generally well-structured, with clear objectives and a reasonable estimated value. However, it lacks explicit evaluation criteria and details on the submission process, impacting its overall quality.

The tender appears to comply with basic legal requirements, including a clear CPV code and a defined procedure. Deadlines are present, though the submission deadline might be considered tight given the complexity of the service. No disputes are indicated. The procedure is 'Below threshold - open competition', which is a standard approach for this value.

The description of the service, target audience, and desired outcomes is detailed and comprehensive. The service model is clearly outlined, specifying accessibility requirements and the 'no wrong door' approach. The AI-extracted requirements further clarify expectations. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria is a significant omission.

Most basic information is present, including title, organization, estimated value, contract duration, and start date. The CPV code is provided. However, the tender documents themselves are not accessible or summarized, which is a critical gap. The 'reveal date' is also missing.

The tender is an open competition, which promotes fairness. The estimated value is disclosed, and the criteria, while not explicitly detailed for evaluation, are described in terms of desired outcomes and service model, which are objective. The 'no wrong door' approach and focus on autonomy for young people suggest a user-centric and fair service design. There is no indication of requirements tailored to specific companies.

The contract start and end dates are clear, and the duration is specified. Financing information is implicitly linked to the estimated value. However, the lack of information regarding e-submission and the URL for documents makes the practical submission process unclear and potentially less efficient.

Key fields such as title, organization, value, and dates are populated. The contract start and end dates are logical and consistent with the duration. There are no indications of suspension or disputes. The timeline is coherent.

The tender does not explicitly mention green procurement, social aspects beyond general wellbeing, or innovation as distinct criteria. While the service inherently addresses social wellbeing, there are no specific sustainability goals or requirements outlined. It is not indicated as EU funded.