Legal Compliance75/100
The tender states adherence to the Open Procedure and the Procurement Act 2023, with a correctly assigned CPV code. However, significant inconsistencies in critical dates (submission deadline, contract start, duration) and estimated value create substantial legal uncertainty and risk, impacting compliance with transparency and legal certainty principles.
•Severe inconsistencies in submission deadline, contract start date, and contract duration.
•Discrepancy in estimated value between basic information and document summary.
Clarity60/100
While the overall project objective and lot structure are clear, the tender suffers from major clarity issues due to conflicting timelines and values. Detailed evaluation criteria and specific performance conditions are largely absent, and AI-extracted requirements are too generic to provide sufficient guidance.
•Conflicting submission deadlines, contract start dates, and contract durations.
•Lack of detailed evaluation criteria beyond high-level weightings.
Completeness55/100
Basic information is present, but the tender is incomplete due to critical inconsistencies in key dates and values. The failure of one tender document to download and the absence of detailed technical requirements and specific evaluation criteria are significant deficiencies.
•Critical inconsistencies in submission deadline, contract duration, and contract start date.
•One tender document failed to download/summarize.
Fairness65/100
The tender discloses the estimated value and is divided into lots, promoting broader participation. However, the failure of a document to download, the lack of detailed evaluation criteria, and the severe timeline inconsistencies create an uneven and potentially unfair bidding environment. Ambiguity regarding electronic submission also impacts equal access.
•Failure of one tender document to download, hindering full access.
•Lack of detailed and objective evaluation criteria.
Practicality50/100
Practicality is hampered by the lack of a direct document URL and the contradiction regarding electronic submission (automated check indicates no e-submission, while description mentions a portal). Conflicting contract start and duration dates also make practical planning challenging for potential bidders.
•No direct URL for tender documents provided.
•Contradiction regarding electronic submission capabilities.
Data Consistency20/100
This category exhibits critical deficiencies. There are multiple, severe inconsistencies in key data fields, including the submission deadline, contract duration, contract start date, and estimated value. This indicates poor data management and poses significant risks to the procurement process.
•Submission deadline (2026-02-18 vs 2025-11-20).
•Contract duration (80 months vs 7 years).
Sustainability50/100
The tender includes a 10% weighting for 'Responsible Procurement,' which is a positive step towards incorporating broader considerations. However, specific criteria for green, social, or innovation aspects are not detailed, suggesting a moderate rather than strong explicit focus on sustainability.
•Lack of detailed specific criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus.