Legal Compliance85/100
The tender, being a preliminary market engagement (PME), is compliant in its approach to gather market input before a formal tender. The CPV code is correctly assigned, and there are no disputes. While 'Type: None' and 'Procedure: None' are not formal PME notice types, the content clearly indicates a PME, which is a legally sound preparatory step.
•Formal procedure type (e.g., Prior Information Notice) is not specified, using 'None' instead.
•Missing reveal date (though less critical for a PME).
Clarity95/100
The description is exceptionally clear, outlining the purpose of the PME, the entities involved, the comprehensive scope of insurance policies, and the objectives. The AI-extracted requirements accurately reflect the call for market input, and the absence of formal evaluation criteria is by design for this stage, not a lack of clarity.
Completeness90/100
All essential basic information, financial details, timeline, and classification data are provided. The list of required insurance policies is comprehensive, and the documents are listed. The absence of formal evaluation criteria is appropriate for a PME, as the engagement aims to define them.
•The 'Liable Person' field is not populated.
Fairness80/100
The PME approach itself promotes fairness by actively seeking market input to shape the final tender, ensuring requirements are realistic and not tailored. The estimated value is disclosed, and the requirements for PME input are generic. However, the lack of an explicit e-submission mechanism could slightly hinder equal access for all potential suppliers.
•No explicit e-submission mechanism for market input.
Practicality60/100
The lack of an explicit e-submission system for market input is a practical drawback in modern procurement. While documents are listed, explicit URLs for direct access are not provided in the basic information, which could add a minor hurdle for interested parties. Contract start date and duration are clearly specified.
•No explicit e-submission support for market input.
•Document URLs are not explicitly provided in the basic information.
Data Consistency95/100
The data provided is highly consistent. Key fields are populated, dates are logical and sequential, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor omissions like 'Liable Person' or the generic 'Type/Procedure' for a PME do not indicate inconsistency.
Sustainability30/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus in its description or requirements. This represents a missed opportunity to align with broader sustainability goals.
•No explicit mention of green procurement criteria.
•No social criteria included.