Legal Compliance75/100
The tender clearly defines the open procedure and states compliance with the Procurement Act 2023. The CPV code is appropriate, and no disputes are reported. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria, which are a legal requirement for transparency, slightly detracts from full compliance.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified in the provided information.
Clarity55/100
While the technical description and requirements for the Lw-DED system are detailed and clear, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria makes it impossible for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed, severely hindering the clarity of the tender process.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•Performance conditions are implied but not quantified with specific metrics.
Completeness50/100
Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the missing evaluation criteria and lack of detail on the 'Divided into Parts' characteristic. Furthermore, an irrelevant document was included, and a key 'Tender Notice' document failed to download.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•No details provided for the 'Divided into Parts' characteristic.
Fairness45/100
The most significant fairness concern is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria, which undermines transparency and objectivity in the selection process. While technical requirements are specific, they appear driven by research needs rather than tailoring. E-procurement is enabled, but the failed document download is a minor barrier.
•No evaluation criteria specified, severely impacting transparency and objectivity.
•The 'Tender Notice' document download failed, potentially limiting full access to information.
Practicality70/100
The tender supports electronic submission via a specified e-tendering system, and provides clear URLs for document access. Key dates (contract start, duration) and financial value are clearly stated. The primary practical issue is the failed download of a potentially important 'Tender Notice' document.
•The 'Tender Notice' document download failed, posing a practical hurdle for bidders.
Data Consistency60/100
Several minor inconsistencies exist, such as empty 'Liable Person' and missing codes for procedure type. The NUTS code (UKE) for a facility in the North West (UKD) is a slight mismatch. The inclusion of an irrelevant award notice ('Lot L-1') for a different council is a significant data consistency and relevance issue.
•Irrelevant document ('Lot L-1') included in the tender documents.
•Missing codes for 'Type' and 'Procedure'.
Sustainability50/100
The procurement inherently focuses on innovation by acquiring advanced manufacturing technology to enhance research capabilities. However, there are no explicit green procurement or social criteria mentioned in the provided information.
•No explicit green procurement criteria.
•No explicit social criteria.