Pseudo-DPS for Apprenticeship Training Provision

This tender for an apprenticeship training pseudo-DPS extension demonstrates good basic information and a reasonable submission period. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria, detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, and financial requirements significantly impacts its clarity, completeness, and fairness.

The tender defines the procedure type and assigns an appropriate CPV code. The submission deadline provides ample time for preparation. However, the reveal date is missing, and the AI summary indicates a lack of specific details regarding mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements, which are typically standard disclosures.

The description of the service and its purpose is clear and unambiguous. Eligibility and technical requirements are understandable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major deficiency, preventing bidders from understanding how their proposals will be assessed.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and CPV code are provided. Documents are referenced as available via Due North. Nevertheless, the tender is incomplete due to the absence of specified evaluation criteria, and the summary's lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements.

The tender discloses the estimated value and sets a reasonable deadline for submission. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria severely compromises fairness and transparency, as bidders cannot objectively prepare their offers or understand the selection process.

The tender indicates 'E-Procurement' and directs bidders to 'Due North' for documents and expressing interest, implying electronic submission is supported. The contract duration is clearly specified. However, a specific contract start date is not provided, and a direct document URL is absent.

Most key fields are populated, the status is active, and there are no disputes. Dates are logical. However, the 'Liable Person' field is empty, and there's a contradiction between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the automated check's 'No e-submission' flag.

The tender makes no mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, suggesting a complete absence of sustainability considerations.