Legal Compliance75/100
The notice explicitly states it is a market engagement and not a formal procurement, which explains the 'None' for procedure type and status 'planning'. This transparency aligns with legal principles for pre-procurement activities. The CPV code is appropriate, and there are no disputes. The disclaimers regarding its non-binding nature are clear.
•Procedure type not formally defined (though justified by market engagement nature)
Clarity80/100
The description of the proposed professional development offer and the purpose of the market engagement are exceptionally clear. The indicative supplier capabilities are well-defined, and the explicit disclaimers about it not being a formal procurement are unambiguous. The AI-extracted requirements accurately reflect the content.
•Formal evaluation criteria and performance conditions are not specified (expected for market engagement)
Completeness70/100
All basic information (title, organization, reference) is present. While financial and timeline details (value, duration, start date) are provided, they are explicitly stated as 'indicative only' and 'subject to change', which is acceptable for a market engagement but would be a significant gap for a formal tender. Indicative requirements are defined.
•Key financial and timeline details are indicative placeholders, not firm commitments
Fairness85/100
The tender actively encourages participation from SMEs and VCSEs and considers consortia, demonstrating a commitment to broad market access. The indicative experience requirements are generic and not tailored to a specific company. Full document access is provided, and the placeholder value is fair for this stage.
•Lack of specified e-submission method could potentially create unequal access if engagement is cumbersome
Practicality65/100
The notice lacks specific instructions on *how* suppliers should engage or submit feedback (e.g., a portal, email address, specific event details). While documents are available, the absence of a clear engagement mechanism reduces practicality for interested parties. The indicative nature of dates and financing also limits practical planning.
•No clear method or platform specified for market engagement/feedback submission
•Contract start date and duration are indicative, limiting practical planning
Data Consistency90/100
The information provided is highly consistent. The 'None' for procedure type and 'planning' status align with the explicit disclaimers that this is a market engagement, not a formal procurement. Any indicative data (value, dates) is clearly qualified as such within the text, resolving potential inconsistencies.
Sustainability50/100
The core subject matter, focusing on professional development for Child and Family Social Workers to improve outcomes for children and families, inherently addresses significant social aspects. However, there are no explicit mentions of green procurement criteria or specific innovation requirements.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit innovation focus