Legal Compliance75/100
The tender explicitly states it will be conducted in accordance with the New Procurement Act 2023, which is a strong point for legal compliance. The CPV code is appropriate. However, the 'Type: None' and 'Procedure: None' fields contradict the clear description of it being a Prior Information Notice, representing a formal inconsistency.
•Formal inconsistency in 'Type' and 'Procedure' fields not reflecting 'Prior Information Notice'.
Clarity80/100
The description of the services, including the two enablement services, target users, and overall objectives, is clear and unambiguous for a PIN. The AI-extracted requirements are well-structured and provide a good understanding of what will be expected in the full tender. The absence of final evaluation criteria is expected at this preliminary stage.
•Final evaluation criteria are not specified (expected for a PIN, but a future requirement).
Completeness70/100
Most basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and contract start date, is provided. However, the critical 'Tender Notice' document failed to download, which significantly impacts the completeness of accessible information. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.
•Critical 'Tender Notice' document failed to download.
•'Liable Person' field is empty.
Fairness85/100
The use of a Prior Information Notice and scheduled pre-market engagement sessions, along with the use of the Atamis portal, promotes fairness and broad market participation. The estimated value is disclosed, and requirements do not appear tailored. The primary concern for fairness is the inaccessible 'Tender Notice' document.
•Inaccessible 'Tender Notice' document may hinder equal access to preliminary information.
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission for pre-market engagement via the Atamis portal is supported, which is practical. The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the failed download of the 'Tender Notice' document and the lack of a direct URL for it pose practical challenges for interested suppliers.
•Failed download of 'Tender Notice' document.
•No direct URL provided for the 'Tender Notice' document.
Data Consistency90/100
Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. The main inconsistencies are the formal 'Type: None' and 'Procedure: None' fields conflicting with the description of a PIN, and the empty 'Liable Person' field.
•'Type' and 'Procedure' fields are marked 'None' despite the description clearly identifying it as a PIN.
•'Liable Person' field is empty.
Sustainability50/100
The tender description does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social value criteria for suppliers (beyond the inherent social nature of the service), or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to incorporate broader sustainability objectives into the procurement process.
•Lack of explicit sustainability, social, or innovation criteria for suppliers.