Development of the Visit Northern Finland B2B-platform (competitive procedure with negotiation)

Procedure

Negotiated, with a call for competition

Accelerated procedure

Yes - shortened timetable

Submit your tender at

https://www.hankintailmoitukset.fi/fi/tendering/procedure/39310/call-for-tenders

Submission language

FIN, ENG

Electronic submission

Required

Tender documents

Freely available

Award criteria

Price, Quality of technical approach & architecture (incl. extensibility), Project plan, timeline & delivery confidence, Team and relevant experience / references, Maintenance, support & continued in-house development, Service-level agreement (SLA)

How the award is decided

Price (single total incl. maintenance / SLA until 30.6.2028; VAT-excl. & VAT-incl.; max. 82 500 € VAT 0 %). Lowest compliant price scores maximum; others scored proportionally., Compared against Section 4 and the Developer Brief / Trade User Journeys. Proposals about platform improvements also taken into consideration. Architecture and integrations (8 points): the solution’s overall architecture and technology choices, integrations (DataHub, Bokun, kuvat.fi, image bank, HubSpot webhook), interface solutions (GraphQL/REST) and the solution’s scalability to new content, languages and partners. AI and data solution (6 points): implementation of AI-based search and recommendation functionality, data model and content enrichment, manageability and quality control of search results, and transparency regarding the costs and dependencies associated with AI usage. Information security and data protection (4 points): information security practices and standards, GDPR responsibilities, data location and processing, access rights management, and management of vulnerabilities and updates. Accessibility and performance (4 points): implementation of accessibility requirements (WCAG 2.1 AA) and verification thereof, page load times, search response times, mobile experience, and the measurable targets set out. Portability and documentation (3 points): the solution’s independence from the supplier’s own proprietary components; documentation of the code and environment; the repeatability of the build and release process; and the portability of the platform to VNF or third-party management. Quality scale for sub-criteria: 0 = no response or response contravenes mandatory requirements 1 = substantially deficient and involves significant implementation risks 2 = partially functional, but contains several material shortcomings; 3 = meets the requirements in a concrete and credible manner; 4 = exceeds the requirements in a measurable and procurement-relevant way; 5 = an exceptionally comprehensive, verified and low-risk solution. The score for a sub-criterion is calculated using the formula: mark / 5 × maximum score for the sub-criterion. The assessment is based solely on the information provided in the tender. The final score for the relevant evaluation criterion is calculated by adding together the scores for the sub-criteria. If a tenderer scores 0 points for the selection criterion in question, the tenderer’s tender must be rejected in its entirety., Realism and completeness of the plan. The assessment is divided into the following sub-criteria and maximum marks: Work and phasing plan (8 points): description of the work content and phases, interim objectives and deliverables for each phase, dependencies on third parties and the contracting authority’s tasks, and the plan’s alignment with the scope of the invitation to tender. Resources and timetable (6 points): the length, realism and binding nature of the timetable; the allocation of man-hours to phases and roles; the availability of resources; and provision for staff changes. Quality assurance, risks and acceptance (6 points): testing and quality assurance practices; risk identification and management measures; change management; the acceptance procedure; and verification of readiness for release. Quality scale for sub-criteria: 0 = no response or contrary to mandatory requirements 1 = substantially deficient and involves significant implementation risks 2 = partially functional, but contains several material deficiencies; 3 = meets the requirements in a concrete and credible manner; 4 = exceeds the requirements in a measurable and procurement-relevant way; 5 = an exceptionally comprehensive, verified and low-risk solution. The score for a sub-criterion is calculated using the formula: mark / 5 × maximum score for the sub-criterion. The assessment is based solely on the information provided in the tender. The final score for the relevant evaluation criterion is calculated by adding together the scores for the sub-criteria. If a tenderer scores 0 points for the selection criterion in question, the tenderer’s tender must be rejected in its entirety., The suitability of the proposed team for tourism/DMO, DataHub and artificial intelligence integration work will be assessed. The assessment is based on the individuals named in the tender and the references provided therein. The assessment is divided into the following sub-criteria and maximum scores: Nominated personnel and commitment (5 points): the names, roles, qualifications and commitment to the project of the personnel responsible for implementing the contract. Experience in the tourism and DMO sectors (6 points): references relating to online services in the tourism sector or for a destination management organisation (DMO), including trade/B2B use cases. DataHub experience (3 points): references to DataHub integrations or similar structured tourism data API integrations. AI integration experience (6 points): references to implementations of AI-based search, recommendations or content enrichment in production use. References MUST BE COMPLETED and must include anonymised customer data, the timeframe, the provider’s role and the technologies used. Quality scale for sub-criteria: 0 = response missing or contrary to mandatory requirements; 1 = substantially deficient and involves significant implementation risks; 2 = partially functional, but contains several material shortcomings; 3 = meets the requirements in a concrete and credible manner; 4 = exceeds the requirements in a measurable and procurement-relevant way; 5 = an exceptionally comprehensive, verified and low-risk solution. The score for a sub-criterion is calculated using the formula: mark / 5 × maximum score for the sub-criterion. The assessment is based solely on the information provided in the tender. The final score for the relevant evaluation criterion is calculated by adding together the scores for the sub-criteria. If a tenderer scores 0 points for the selection criterion in question, the tenderer’s tender must be rejected in its entirety., An assessment shall be made of post-publication support and the extent to which VNF staff can continue development work (Chapter 7 of the invitation to tender). The assessment is divided into the following sub-criteria and maximum scores: Manageability (3 points): the usability of content management and platform administration tools without programming skills, user roles and permissions, and post-launch support. Vendor independence (4 points): the openness and replaceability of the components used; the export of data and content; the handover of the environment and code to VNF; and an exit procedure without additional costs or licence restrictions. Documentation and knowledge transfer (3 points): technical and maintenance documentation in Finnish and/or English; the content and scope of training; and a concrete plan for how VNF’s staff will continue development work following handover. Quality scale for each sub-criterion: 0 = no response or contrary to mandatory requirements 1 = substantially deficient and involves significant implementation risks 2 = partially functional, but contains several material shortcomings; 3 = meets the requirements in a concrete and credible manner; 4 = exceeds the requirements in a measurable and procurement-relevant way; 5 = an exceptionally comprehensive, verified and low-risk solution. The score for a sub-criterion is calculated using the formula: rating / 5 × maximum score for the sub-criterion. The assessment is based solely on the information provided in the tender. The final score for the relevant award criterion is calculated by summing the scores for the sub-criteria. If a tenderer scores 0 points for the selection criterion in question, the tenderer’s tender must be rejected in its entirety., The optional service level agreement (SLA) specified in Chapter 9 of the invitation to tender shall be assessed. The assessment shall be based solely on the SLA document submitted as an annex to the tender and shall be divided into the sections of Chapter 9 as follows: Scope and definitions (2 point): services covered and excluded, definitions of terms, service and support hours, roles and escalation chain. Availability and performance targets (2 point): availability rate (at least 99.5 per cent) and its calculation, performance metrics, maintenance windows, capacity and scalability commitments. Support and incident management (2 point): severity classification (P1–P4), response and resolution times by severity level, support channels and languages, escalation procedure. Backup, information security and data (2 point): backup frequency and retention, RPO/RTO, recovery plan, information security standards, GDPR responsibilities, as well as data ownership and exit terms. Monitoring, reporting and governance model (2 point): implementation of monitoring, reporting and frequency, service review meetings, and credit or penalty procedures. Quality scale for each sub-criterion: 0 = no response or response contravenes mandatory requirements; 1 = substantially deficient and involves significant implementation risks; 2 = partially functional, but contains several material shortcomings; 3 = meets the requirements in a concrete and credible manner; 4 = exceeds the requirements in a measurable and, from a procurement perspective, beneficial way; 5 = an exceptionally comprehensive, verified and low-risk solution. The score for a sub-criterion is calculated using the formula: rating / 5 × maximum score for the sub-criterion. The assessment is based solely on the information provided in the tender. Note: if a service level agreement is not included in the tender, the tenderer will lose 10 percentage points, meaning no points can be awarded for that particular evaluation criterion. Still, the final evaluation is calculated on a 100-point scale across all tenderers.

Type of contract

Services

Place of performance

FIZZZ

Framework agreement

No

Dynamic purchasing system

No

Variant tenders

Not allowed

EU funded

Yes

Legal basis

other

Email

yt@visitnorthernfinland.fi

Phone

+358 405466283

Address

Hallituskatu 1, 90100, OULU

Website

http://www.visitnorthernfinland.fi