Piloting and Pilot Evaluation of the “PAX Good Behavior Game”

This tender presents a mixed quality assessment, demonstrating good adherence to basic procedural elements but suffering from critical transparency and fairness issues, notably restricted document access and missing evaluation criteria.

The tender generally adheres to legal requirements with a reasonable submission deadline, clear procedure type, and appropriate CPV code. The use of ESPD and EU funding suggests compliance with broader EU directives. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a significant legal transparency concern, and the undisclosed estimated value, while not always a legal breach, can be.

The tender's title and description are clear, and AI-extracted requirements are specific. However, the explicit flag of 'No evaluation criteria specified' is a critical clarity flaw, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their offers will be assessed. There's also a contradiction between a document summary claiming evaluation criteria exist and the automated checks stating they are missing.

Most essential information, such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, duration, and location, is provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the critical 'evaluation criteria' are flagged as missing, representing significant gaps in completeness.

Fairness is severely compromised by 'Restricted document access,' which prevents equal access to information. The undisclosed estimated value and the absence of specified evaluation criteria further undermine transparency and objectivity. The contradiction regarding e-submission also raises concerns about equal access to the procurement process.

The tender specifies duration, but practicality is hampered by the 'Restricted document access' and the 'No e-submission' flag, which contradicts the 'E-Procurement' characteristic. The lack of a specific contract start date and detailed financing information also presents minor practical hurdles for bidders.

Dates are logical, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, there are significant inconsistencies, such as the 'E-Procurement' characteristic conflicting with 'No e-submission' in automated checks, and the contradiction regarding the presence of evaluation criteria. The undisclosed estimated value also represents a missing key data point.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards, but it explicitly lacks any stated green procurement, social, or innovation criteria within its requirements.