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

This tender outlines a significant framework agreement for healthcare supply chain systems but suffers from critical omissions in documentation and a procedural approach that contradicts its 'Open procedure' classification, potentially hindering fair competition and legal compliance.

There are significant legal compliance concerns. Mandatory exclusion grounds, a fundamental requirement in public procurement, are not explicitly provided. Furthermore, the description of 'inviting interactions' and 'contributing to the development of final requirements' suggests a procedure other than an Open procedure, which could lead to non-compliance with procurement principles if not managed correctly.

While the overall objective and scope (IMS, PoC, Hardware for healthcare) are clear, the complete absence of any tender documents makes the actual requirements, evaluation criteria, and submission process highly unclear. The expectation for suppliers to 'contribute to the development of final requirements' introduces significant ambiguity regarding what exactly suppliers are bidding on at this stage.

The tender is severely lacking in completeness. With no tender documents attached, crucial information such as detailed specifications, full eligibility/exclusion criteria, specific financial requirements (e.g., minimum turnover), technical specifications, and evaluation criteria are entirely absent from the notice. This makes it impossible for suppliers to prepare a comprehensive and compliant bid.

The absence of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria, coupled with the expectation for suppliers to 'contribute to the development of final requirements,' creates an uneven playing field. This approach, unusual for an open procedure, could inadvertently favor incumbent suppliers or those with pre-existing relationships or insights, as they might have a better understanding of the contracting authority's evolving needs, thereby limiting fair competition.

From a supplier's perspective, it is highly impractical to prepare a bid for a €240M framework agreement without any tender documents, detailed specifications, or clear evaluation criteria. The described process of supplier interaction for requirements development is practical for a competitive dialogue or negotiated procedure, but not for an open procedure where bids are expected based on fixed, published requirements.

The primary inconsistency lies in the stated 'Open procedure' type versus the described process of 'inviting interactions' and 'contributing to the development of final requirements.' These elements are characteristic of more flexible procedures (e.g., competitive dialogue or innovation partnership) rather than a rigid open procedure, creating a significant contradiction in the tender's approach.

The tender positively mentions 'Social Criteria' as a characteristic, indicating a broader impact focus. However, without any tender documents, it's impossible to assess the specific sustainability requirements or how they will be evaluated. The automated check also flagged 'Not green procurement,' suggesting a missed opportunity for explicit environmental considerations.