Marketing Services

This tender, currently in a planning status, provides a clear and detailed description of the required marketing services across four distinct lots. However, it significantly lacks crucial information such as the procedure type, evaluation criteria, and specific eligibility or financial requirements, which are essential for a comprehensive and fair procurement process.

The tender lacks fundamental legal information, including the procedure type, liable person, and a clear 'reveal date' for the notice. While its 'planning' status might explain the absence of full legal requirements (exclusion, eligibility, financial), the ambiguity of the 'submission deadline' in this context is problematic. CPV codes are correctly assigned, and there are no disputes.

The description of the multi-lot framework and the technical requirements for each lot are exceptionally clear and detailed. However, the overall clarity for bidders is significantly hampered by the explicit absence of evaluation criteria, eligibility requirements, and financial requirements.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and contract start date are present. Documents are also listed. However, the tender is incomplete due to the explicit absence of evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility requirements, and financial requirements, which are critical for a full tender.

The absence of evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as bidders cannot understand how their proposals will be judged. The lack of electronic submission support also reduces equal access. While the technical requirements appear generic and not tailored, these procedural gaps significantly impact fairness.

The lack of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. While the contract start date and duration are clearly specified, the absence of e-submission creates an unnecessary barrier for potential bidders.

Key fields such as 'Type' and 'Procedure' are unpopulated, and the 'Liable Person' is missing, indicating significant data gaps. While dates are logical and consistent, and there are no disputes, the missing core classification data reduces the overall consistency score. A minor currency discrepancy exists between the estimated value in EUR and a document summary in GBP, but this is not critical for a planning notice.

The tender makes no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This indicates a significant oversight in integrating modern sustainability and responsible procurement practices.