Legal Compliance100/100
The tender appears to follow an Open procedure, which is generally compliant. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and detailed evaluation criteria in the provided extract is a significant omission that could lead to legal challenges regarding transparency and equal treatment.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds
•Absence of explicit eligibility requirements
Clarity40/100
While the objective of the tender (consolidating services, simplifying access, removing duplication) is clear from the description, the requirements for achieving this are high-level and lack specific detail. This creates ambiguity for bidders on what exactly needs to be proposed and how it will be assessed.
•High-level technical requirements lacking specific detail
•Ambiguity regarding expected service delivery model
Completeness83/100
This tender is critically incomplete due to the absence of any attached documents, detailed eligibility criteria, specific mandatory exclusion grounds, and crucially, evaluation criteria. Bidders cannot prepare a proper submission based solely on the provided extract.
•No tender documents attached
•Missing detailed eligibility criteria
Fairness60/100
The lack of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria creates a significant risk to fairness. Without clear rules for assessment, the contracting authority has excessive discretion, potentially leading to unequal treatment of bidders. The high-level requirements could also implicitly favor incumbents or those with prior knowledge.
•Absence of clear evaluation criteria compromises equal treatment
•High-level requirements may implicitly favor incumbent providers
Practicality40/100
From a bidder's perspective, it is highly impractical to prepare a competitive and compliant bid without any tender documents, detailed specifications, or evaluation criteria. From the contracting authority's perspective, evaluating bids based on such limited information would be challenging and subjective.
•Impractical for bidders to prepare comprehensive proposals without full documentation
•Challenges for the contracting authority to objectively evaluate bids
Data Consistency100/100
The provided data is internally consistent (e.g., title matches description, value is stated). However, the lack of data (e.g., no NUTS code, no characteristics) means there's less to check for consistency against.
Sustainability0/100
The provided information does not include any specific requirements or considerations related to environmental, social, or economic sustainability. This is a missed opportunity for the contracting authority.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social criteria