Legal Compliance75/100
The RFI clearly defines its non-binding nature and purpose, aligning with best practices for market engagement. Deadlines are reasonable for an RFI. The 'Type: None' and 'Procedure: None' in structured data are technically accurate for an RFI but could cause initial confusion.
•Structured data fields 'Type' and 'Procedure' are marked as 'None', which, while technically correct for an RFI, could be clearer if a specific 'RFI' type was available.
Clarity80/100
The RFI's description, objectives, and scope of requirements are exceptionally clear and unambiguous. The AI-extracted requirements accurately reflect the document's content. The absence of formal evaluation criteria is appropriate for an RFI.
Completeness70/100
All essential basic information is provided, and documents are accessible. However, the inclusion of 'Contract Duration' and 'Contract Start' dates, which pertain to a potential future contract rather than the RFI itself, can be somewhat misleading regarding the completeness of the RFI's own details.
•Inclusion of 'Contract Duration' and 'Contract Start' dates for a potential future contract within the RFI's basic information, which is not directly relevant to the RFI's own lifecycle.
Fairness85/100
Document access is full, and the nominal value is disclosed. The 14-day response period is reasonable for an RFI. Requirements are specific to CL3 labs but not tailored to a single company. The lack of a dedicated e-submission portal, relying on email, slightly reduces fairness compared to modern standards.
•Submission via email rather than a dedicated e-procurement portal may offer less equal access and auditability.
Practicality65/100
The provision of a document URL is practical. However, the reliance on email for submission, coupled with using a separate portal (Atamis) for questions, creates a less streamlined and less practical process than a fully integrated e-procurement system.
•Lack of full electronic submission support, relying on email for responses.
•Mixed communication channels (Atamis for questions, email for submission) reduce overall practicality.
Data Consistency90/100
Key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The nominal estimated value of 1.00 EUR is consistent with an RFI's non-binding nature.
Sustainability50/100
The RFI does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. While the nature of the service (public health emergency response) has inherent social value, these criteria are not actively sought or highlighted within the RFI itself.
•No explicit mention of green procurement criteria.
•No explicit mention of social criteria.