Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and assigns a correct CPV code. The remaining submission period is reasonable. However, the evaluation criteria are listed without specified weightings, which is a common legal requirement for transparency and could lead to challenges.
•Evaluation criteria are listed but not weighted.
Clarity80/100
The project description, background, and key points are clear and unambiguous. Technical and performance requirements are well-documented and understandable. The main clarity issue stems from the unweighted evaluation criteria, making it less clear how bids will be comparatively assessed.
•Evaluation criteria are listed but not weighted.
Completeness70/100
Basic information, financial details, timeline, and location are provided. Requirements are comprehensive. However, one administrative document is listed as 'Page not found', and the evaluation framework is incomplete due to the absence of weighted criteria.
•One administrative document ('Attachment A-11007') is inaccessible ('Page not found').
•Evaluation criteria are listed but not weighted.
Fairness55/100
The requirements appear generic and not tailored. The estimated value is disclosed. However, the lack of an e-submission option creates barriers to equal access. The unweighted evaluation criteria, coupled with the subjective 'Feedback from Public' criterion, significantly reduce transparency and objectivity, raising fairness concerns.
•No electronic submission option is available.
•Evaluation criteria are unweighted, reducing transparency and objectivity.
Practicality65/100
The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the absence of electronic submission is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The inaccessibility of one administrative document also poses a practical challenge for bidders.
•No electronic submission is supported.
•One administrative document is inaccessible ('Page not found').
Data Consistency70/100
The tender shows no disputes or suspensions, and dates are logical. However, some key fields like 'Liable Person' and procedure codes are empty. The statement 'Value Classified: Yes' is contradictory given that the estimated value of 40,000.00 EUR is explicitly disclosed.
•Some key fields (e.g., 'Liable Person', procedure codes) are empty.
•Contradiction between 'Value Classified: Yes' and the disclosed 'Estimated Value'.
Sustainability50/100
The tender mentions the use of 'low energy LED lights' in the background, which is a positive environmental aspect. However, it does not explicitly incorporate specific green procurement criteria, social aspects, or innovation focus as part of the evaluation or requirements for the new installation.
•No explicit green procurement criteria beyond the inherent nature of LED lights.
•No social criteria included.