Legal Compliance75/100
The RFI clearly states its purpose as market research and not a formal tender, aligning with legal principles for pre-procurement engagement. The 14-day response period is reasonable for an RFI. However, the 'Type: None' and 'Procedure: None' in the basic information are formal omissions, despite the text clarifying its RFI nature.
•Basic information fields 'Type' and 'Procedure' are marked as 'None', which is inconsistent with the clear RFI description.
Clarity85/100
The RFI's objectives, scope, and expectations for respondents are exceptionally clear and unambiguous. The explicit statement that it is not a formal tender and will not lead to contracts prevents misunderstandings. The absence of formal evaluation criteria is appropriate for an RFI.
Completeness70/100
Most essential information for an RFI is present, including title, organization, description, and RFI deadlines. However, the inclusion of 'Estimated Value,' 'Contract Duration,' and 'Contract Start' without explicit clarification that these are purely hypothetical for a *future* tender, given the RFI's non-sourcing nature, introduces a minor ambiguity.
•Inclusion of hypothetical contract value, duration, and start date without explicit disclaimer for an RFI.
Fairness80/100
The requirements for organizations operating CL3 laboratories in the UK are specific but necessary for the subject matter and are not tailored to a single company, ensuring fair access for qualified entities. Document access is provided. However, submission via email rather than a dedicated e-procurement portal is a slight drawback for equal access and transparency.
•RFI responses are submitted via email, which is less transparent and auditable than a dedicated e-procurement portal.
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission is supported via email, but the split between email for responses and the Atamis portal for questions is less practical than a unified system. A direct document URL was not explicitly provided in the text, though documents are listed as available.
•Disjointed submission process (email for responses, Atamis for questions).
•No explicit document URL provided in the tender text.
Data Consistency80/100
Key dates are logical and consistent. However, the 'Type: None' and 'Procedure: None' fields are inconsistent with the detailed RFI description. The presence of contract-related financial and timeline data for a non-sourcing RFI also presents a minor consistency challenge.
•Inconsistency between 'Type: None'/'Procedure: None' and the detailed RFI description.
•Contract-related financial and timeline data for a non-sourcing RFI creates minor data consistency issues.
Sustainability30/100
The RFI does not include any explicit criteria or focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. While common for market research, this results in a low score for this specific category.
•No explicit mention of green procurement criteria.
•No explicit mention of social aspects.