Legal Compliance75/100
The use of a DPS is a legally sound procurement tool. CPV codes are appropriate. However, the basic information's classification as 'Restricted procedure' contradicts the 'DPS Agreement' described, and the AI summary indicates a lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements in the provided text, which are typically standard legal components.
•Inconsistency in procedure type (Restricted vs. DPS)
•Lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided text
Clarity80/100
The description of the DPS, its purpose, and product categories is very clear. The stated eligibility, technical, and submission requirements are understandable. However, the explicit absence of detailed evaluation criteria for admission to the DPS or subsequent call-offs is a significant clarity issue.
•No detailed evaluation criteria specified for DPS admission or subsequent call-offs
Completeness70/100
Basic information, value, duration, and scope are well-defined. However, the tender lacks completeness regarding specific mandatory exclusion grounds, financial requirements, and, critically, the detailed evaluation criteria for the DPS award process.
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria
•Missing specific mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided text
Fairness85/100
The DPS structure inherently promotes fairness by allowing continuous applications and being divided into parts. The value is disclosed, and e-procurement is enabled. Requirements appear generic, not tailored. The primary concern for fairness is the absence of explicit, detailed evaluation criteria, which could lead to perceived subjectivity.
•Absence of explicit and detailed evaluation criteria
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission via Jaggaer is supported, which is practical. The duration and estimated value are clearly specified. However, a direct document URL is not provided in the snippet, and specific contract start dates or detailed financing terms are not present.
•No direct document URL provided in the snippet
•Contract start date not explicitly stated
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical for a DPS. The main inconsistency lies in the classification of the procedure type as 'Restricted' while the description clearly defines it as a 'Dynamic Purchasing System'.
•Inconsistency between 'Type'/'Procedure' (Restricted) and 'Description' (DPS)
Sustainability50/100
The provided tender information does not include any explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader sustainability objectives.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social criteria