Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) Design Consultation & Audio Recording Services

This tender for IVR services presents significant concerns regarding fairness and legal compliance due to its highly restrictive eligibility criteria requiring bidders to be both SMEs and VCSEs. While basic information and practical aspects are well-covered, there are notable gaps in the detailed clarity and completeness of evaluation criteria and tender specifications.

The mandatory requirement for bidders to be both Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprises (VCSEs) is highly restrictive and potentially non-compliant with procurement principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. The absence of specific mandatory exclusion grounds is also a notable gap. Procedure type and CPV code are correctly assigned.

The service description and high-level technical requirements are clear. However, while evaluation criteria percentages (70% quality, 30% price) are stated, the detailed breakdown of the 70% quality component is missing, which is crucial for bidders. Performance conditions are general, and the 'Divided into Parts' characteristic is mentioned but not elaborated.

Basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are provided. However, the summaries of the attached documents are very generic, suggesting a potential lack of detailed specifications, terms of reference, or a contract draft. The detailed breakdown of quality evaluation criteria and specific mandatory exclusion grounds are also missing.

The mandatory eligibility requirement for bidders to be *both* SMEs and VCSEs is extremely restrictive, severely limiting the pool of potential bidders and strongly suggesting tailoring, which undermines fair competition. While e-procurement is enabled and value is disclosed, the lack of detailed quality evaluation criteria further reduces transparency and objectivity.

Electronic submission is well-supported via the Delta eSourcing portal, and direct links are provided. The contract start date and duration are clearly specified, and the estimated value is disclosed, contributing to good practicality.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include empty fields for 'Liable Person' and procedure codes, but these do not hinder overall understanding. The automated check's 'No e-submission' flag contradicts the tender's description and AI-extracted requirements, indicating an error in the automated check.

The tender shows limited focus on broader sustainability aspects. There is no explicit mention of green procurement or innovation. While the VCSE requirement could be seen as a social aspect, its mandatory and combined nature makes it a barrier to competition rather than a clear positive sustainability criterion in this context.