Scan4Safety - Supply of IMS & POC Scanning System and Associated Hardware Devices

This tender, despite its significant value and strategic importance, is critically underdeveloped due to the complete absence of tender documents, explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, and detailed evaluation criteria. The expectation for suppliers to co-develop requirements within an Open procedure raises significant concerns regarding fairness and transparency.

Legal compliance is critically deficient. The absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds is a fundamental legal flaw. The complete lack of any tender documents, including specifications, terms and conditions, and a draft contract, makes it impossible for suppliers to understand the legal framework. The 'Open procedure' label appears inconsistent with the expectation for suppliers to co-develop requirements, which typically aligns with different, more flexible procurement procedures.

Clarity is extremely poor. While the overall objective is broadly stated, the specific requirements, technical specifications, scope of services, and crucially, the evaluation methodology are entirely missing. The instruction for suppliers to 'contribute to the development of final requirements' indicates a fundamental lack of clarity from the contracting authority's side, making it impossible for bidders to formulate precise proposals.

The tender is severely incomplete. It lacks all essential documentation required for a public procurement process of this scale, including detailed specifications, evaluation criteria, submission forms, and contractual terms. This fundamental omission prevents potential bidders from preparing a compliant and competitive offer.

Fairness is highly questionable. The absence of clear, pre-defined requirements and evaluation criteria, combined with the invitation for suppliers to 'contribute to the development of final requirements,' creates a significant risk of unfair advantage for certain bidders who might have prior knowledge or influence. This process lacks transparency and equal treatment among potential suppliers.

The tender is impractical for both the contracting authority and potential bidders in its current state. Bidders cannot submit meaningful or comparable proposals without detailed information. The contracting authority risks receiving non-compliant or non-comparable bids, or no bids at all, and faces significant challenges in evaluating proposals without defined criteria. The co-development approach within an 'Open procedure' is procedurally complex and prone to delays.

The limited data provided is internally consistent in its basic administrative details. However, there is a significant inconsistency between the stated 'Open procedure' and the expectation for suppliers to 'contribute to the development of final requirements,' as these two approaches typically belong to different procurement methodologies.

The tender mentions 'Innovation Focus' and 'Social Criteria' as characteristics, which are positive indicators for broader sustainability considerations. However, without any detailed requirements or evaluation criteria in the tender documents, it is impossible to assess how these will be implemented, measured, or if environmental sustainability ('green procurement') will be addressed.