Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements, coupled with critical tender documents being unavailable, raises concerns regarding full compliance with disclosure requirements.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements.
•Critical tender documents (Tender Letter, Tender Questionnaire) are unavailable.
Clarity80/100
The project description and technical requirements are exceptionally clear and unambiguous, detailing the scope, desired aesthetics, and standards. However, the complete lack of specified evaluation criteria is a significant clarity issue for potential bidders.
•No evaluation criteria are specified.
Completeness70/100
While basic information, deadlines, value, and duration are provided, the tender is critically incomplete due to three essential documents (Tender Letter, Tender Questionnaire, Tender Notice) being unavailable. The absence of evaluation criteria further contributes to incompleteness.
•Critical tender documents (Tender Letter, Tender Questionnaire, Tender Notice) are unavailable.
•Evaluation criteria are not defined.
Fairness65/100
Fairness is severely compromised by the unavailability of critical tender documents and the complete absence of evaluation criteria, preventing bidders from understanding the full scope and assessment process. The lack of e-submission also presents a minor barrier to equal access.
•Full document access is not provided due to unavailable tender documents.
•Evaluation criteria are not objective and transparent as they are missing.
Practicality65/100
The tender provides clear contract start and duration, and financing information. However, the lack of electronic submission support is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The unavailability of linked documents also creates practical difficulties.
•Electronic submission is not supported.
•Document URLs for critical tender documents are broken/unavailable.
Data Consistency90/100
Key fields are generally populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates for the project timeline are logical and consistent. A minor inconsistency exists with the top-level estimated value in EUR versus the detailed budget in GBP, but the GBP values are clearly stated.
•Minor inconsistency between the top-level estimated value in EUR and the detailed budget in GBP.
Sustainability70/100
The tender includes positive sustainability aspects such as DDA compliant inclusive play equipment (social) and a focus on natural-look equipment and retaining existing trees (environmental). However, it lacks a broader, explicit green procurement framework or innovation focus.
•No explicit broader green procurement framework beyond specific environmental preferences.
•No explicit innovation focus.