Legal Compliance100/100
The tender is classified as 'Below threshold - open competition'. However, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and detailed legal/financial requirements, typically standard even for smaller procurements, raises concerns about adherence to fundamental procurement principles. The lack of formal tender documents makes it impossible to assess full legal compliance.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds.
•Lack of formal tender documents to verify legal compliance of the process and terms.
Clarity40/100
The 'Description' section clearly outlines the scope of services required. However, the 'EXTRACTED REQUIREMENTS' are presented as general abilities rather than specific, measurable criteria, leading to ambiguity regarding how bidders will demonstrate compliance. The absence of tender documents further compounds this lack of clarity.
•Requirements are broadly stated (e.g., 'experienced,' 'competent,' 'ability to operate safely') without specific definitions or measurable criteria.
•Lack of detailed specifications for service frequencies, quality standards, or site-specific requirements beyond 'agreed programme of works' and 'best grounds maintenance practice'.
Completeness83/100
The tender is severely incomplete due to the absence of any attached documents. Key elements such as detailed specifications, terms and conditions, evaluation criteria, submission instructions, and contract drafts are entirely missing from the provided information. This makes it impossible for potential bidders to prepare a comprehensive and compliant offer.
•No tender documents attached (0 total), which is a critical omission.
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria, making it unclear how bids will be assessed.
Fairness60/100
The lack of explicit evaluation criteria, detailed requirements, and formal tender documents creates a significant risk to fairness. Without clear rules for assessment, the contracting authority has excessive discretion, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions or a perception of bias. The subjective nature of terms like 'experienced' and 'competent' without defined metrics further undermines fairness.
•Missing evaluation criteria, which is a fundamental requirement for fair competition.
•Subjective eligibility criteria ('experienced,' 'competent') without objective definitions or methods of proof.
Practicality40/100
The tender's description of services is practical and reflects typical grounds maintenance needs. However, the estimated value of 30,000 EUR for 36 months appears potentially too low for the described comprehensive scope of grounds maintenance services, including labour, supervision, plant, and equipment, which may deter qualified bidders or lead to unsustainable pricing.
•The estimated value of 30,000 EUR for 36 months seems potentially too low for the described comprehensive scope of grounds maintenance services, possibly deterring qualified bidders or leading to unsustainable pricing.
Data Consistency100/100
Based on the provided limited information, there are no apparent inconsistencies in the data presented. The description aligns with the CPV code and the general nature of the requirements.
Sustainability0/100
The tender mentions compliance with 'all relevant environmental requirements' but lacks specific green procurement criteria or social considerations. The absence of these details means there's no proactive integration of sustainability beyond basic compliance.
•Lack of specific green procurement criteria or environmental performance indicators beyond general compliance.
•Absence of social criteria (e.g., fair labour practices, local employment initiatives).