Library Management System January 2026

This tender for a Library Management System is generally well-structured with clear technical requirements and evaluation criteria, including a strong focus on Social Value. However, it suffers from significant practical and data consistency issues, notably the absence of e-submission, a direct document URL, and a currency discrepancy in the estimated value.

The tender defines the procedure type as 'Open' and 'Competitive flexible procedure' and assigns a relevant CPV code. No disputes are noted. However, specific procedure codes and the liable person are missing, and the 'Value Classified: Yes' flag contradicts the disclosed value, creating minor compliance ambiguities.

The description of the required Library Management System and its core functionalities is clear and unambiguous. Evaluation criteria (Price 40%, Quality 40%, Social Value 20%) are explicitly stated. However, detailed eligibility and mandatory exclusion grounds are not summarized, which could lead to initial uncertainty for bidders.

Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, duration, and NUTS code, is provided. Technical requirements and evaluation criteria are defined. However, the 'Liable Person' and specific procedure codes are missing, and detailed eligibility/exclusion criteria are not fully presented in the summary.

The evaluation criteria are objective and transparent, and technical requirements appear generic, not tailored. However, the absence of a direct document URL and the lack of e-submission capabilities significantly impede equal access and fairness for potential bidders, creating unnecessary barriers.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the tender lacks support for electronic submission, which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The absence of a direct document URL also makes it impractical for bidders to easily access full tender details.

While most dates are logical and no disputes are present, there is a significant currency inconsistency where the estimated value is listed as EUR in basic info but as GBP in document summaries and AI-extracted financial requirements. The 'Value Classified: Yes' flag also contradicts the disclosed value.

The tender positively incorporates social aspects by allocating 20% of the evaluation score to 'Social Value'. However, there is no explicit mention or focus on green procurement or innovation, which limits its overall sustainability score.