Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines a clear procedure type and CPV code, and mandates adherence to relevant BSEN standards. However, the absence of a clear reveal date and the highly specific API membership requirement raise concerns about transparency and potential limitations on competition, which could be challenged under procurement regulations.
•Missing tender reveal date
•API membership requirement is highly restrictive
Clarity65/100
The project description and technical requirements for the gym equipment and safety surface are generally clear and well-documented. However, the critical omission of explicit evaluation criteria significantly reduces the clarity for potential bidders on how their proposals will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness70/100
Basic information, financial details, timeline, and location are adequately provided. The technical requirements are also well-defined. Nevertheless, the absence of specified evaluation criteria represents a major gap in the tender documentation, hindering bidders' ability to submit fully aligned proposals.
•Missing evaluation criteria
Fairness40/100
While the value is disclosed and the procedure is open, the mandatory requirement for tenderers to hold a current API (Association of Play Industries) membership is highly restrictive. This significantly limits the pool of potential bidders and could be perceived as tailoring requirements to a specific segment of the market, thereby undermining fair competition. The lack of e-submission also creates an unnecessary barrier.
•API membership requirement is highly restrictive, potentially limiting competition
•No e-submission facility
Practicality60/100
The tender provides a clear contract start date and duration, and the budget is specified. However, the lack of electronic submission capabilities is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement, potentially increasing administrative burden for bidders and the contracting authority.
•No electronic submission (e-submission) supported
Data Consistency85/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. A minor inconsistency exists between the estimated value stated in EUR (24,000) and the maximum budget specified in GBP (£20,000), though these values are broadly comparable.
•Minor currency inconsistency between estimated value (EUR) and budget (GBP)
Sustainability30/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation-focused criteria. This indicates a missed opportunity to leverage the procurement process for broader public policy objectives beyond the immediate service delivery.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No social aspects considered