Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and no disputes are reported. However, the absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds is a minor concern. The UK facility requirement, while restrictive, is likely justifiable for defence procurement under national regulations.
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds explicitly stated.
Clarity60/100
The service description and technical requirements are very clear and well-documented. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a significant deficiency that severely impacts the clarity of the selection process for potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
Completeness65/100
Basic information like title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are present. However, the 'Liable Person' is missing, and there are inconsistencies in contract duration. Crucially, while requirements are listed, the essential evaluation criteria are absent, and the 'Required: No' status for all listed documents is confusing, potentially indicating missing submission templates.
•Missing 'Liable Person' information.
•Evaluation criteria are not defined.
Fairness50/100
The lack of specified evaluation criteria is a major concern for fairness and transparency, as bidders cannot objectively understand how their proposals will be judged. The absence of e-submission also creates an unequal playing field. The mandatory UK facility requirement, while potentially justifiable for national security, significantly limits competition.
•No evaluation criteria specified, impacting transparency.
•No e-submission support, hindering equal access.
Practicality40/100
The tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The contract start date being identical to the submission deadline is highly impractical and likely an error, indicating a flawed timeline.
•No electronic submission supported.
•Contract start date is the same as the submission deadline, which is impractical.
Data Consistency55/100
Several inconsistencies are present: the estimated value is listed as EUR in basic info but £10m in the description, the contract duration (58 months) conflicts with the described 5 years + 3x1 optional years, and the contract start date is illogically set to the submission deadline. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.
•Inconsistent currency for estimated value (EUR vs GBP).
•Inconsistent contract duration (58 months vs 5 years + 3x1 optional years).
Sustainability20/100
The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus criteria. This is common for defence procurement but results in a low score for this category.
•No green procurement criteria.
•No social aspects considered.