Commercial Portfolio

This tender is clear and consistent regarding basic information, but it has significant deficiencies in evaluation criteria, e-submission, and sustainability aspects. It presents a moderate risk for bidders due to a lack of transparency in the evaluation process.

The procedure type and CPV code are clearly defined, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the absence of a reveal date, specific mandatory exclusion grounds, and detailed evaluation criteria represents minor compliance gaps in terms of full disclosure and adherence to best practices.

The description of the required service is clear and unambiguous. However, the AI-extracted requirements are high-level and lack detail, and the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major clarity deficiency for potential bidders.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, and duration are provided. However, critical details like specific mandatory exclusion grounds, detailed financial requirements, and evaluation criteria are missing. The tender also lacks a specified reveal date.

The estimated value is disclosed, and documents are available. The requirements are generic and do not appear tailored. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria significantly undermines transparency and objectivity in the assessment process. The lack of e-submission also creates barriers to equal access for all potential bidders.

The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, the lack of support for electronic submission is a significant practical drawback, making the bidding process less efficient and accessible for suppliers.

Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported suspensions or disputes. Dates are logical. However, minor inconsistencies include missing codes for the procedure type, an empty 'Liable Person' field, and a slight discrepancy in the estimated value's currency/amount between the basic information (EUR) and document summaries (GBP).

The tender shows no indication of incorporating green procurement principles, social aspects, or an innovation focus. It is also not EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.