Legal Compliance60/100
The tender lacks a clearly defined procedure type and a reveal date, which are fundamental for legal compliance and transparency. While CPV codes are correctly assigned and no disputes are present, these omissions are significant, even in a 'planning' status.
•Missing procedure type
•Missing reveal date
Clarity60/100
The description of the required services is clear and comprehensive, detailing the scope and target groups. However, the tender explicitly lacks specified evaluation criteria, and the AI-extracted requirements, while clear in scope, lack detailed specifications or assessment methodologies.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Requirements lack detailed specifications
Completeness65/100
Basic information, financial details, timeline, and document summaries are provided. The tender is divided into lots, which is a positive. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria and detailed requirements beyond broad categories represents a significant gap in completeness.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Detailed requirements for eligibility/financials are missing
Fairness35/100
The tender's fairness is severely compromised by the scheduling of 'Meet the Buyer' sessions *after* the submission deadline, which is highly illogical and prevents potential bidders from using these sessions for clarification before submitting their proposals. The lack of specified evaluation criteria and the absence of e-submission further detract from transparency and equal access.
•"Meet the Buyer" sessions scheduled after submission deadline
•No evaluation criteria specified
Practicality55/100
The tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. A direct URL for accessing full tender documents is also not provided. While contract start and duration are clear, these practical limitations hinder ease of participation.
•No e-submission
•No document URL provided
Data Consistency45/100
Key fields such as procedure type, liable person, and reveal date are unpopulated, indicating data gaps. Critically, the timing of the 'Meet the Buyer' sessions (after the submission deadline) is illogical and inconsistent with effective market engagement, creating confusion.
•Missing key fields (procedure type, liable person, reveal date)
•Illogical timing of "Meet the Buyer" sessions relative to submission deadline
Sustainability25/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social criteria (beyond the inherent social nature of the service), or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.
•Not green procurement
•No social criteria