NECS267 Pseudo Dynamic Purchasing System for Rapid Specialist Opinion / Referral Management Services.

This tender notice for a Pseudo Dynamic Purchasing System (PDPS) is clear in its purpose and registration process but significantly lacks transparency regarding detailed requirements and evaluation criteria, which are only accessible post-registration.

The tender clearly identifies itself as a PDPS with an appropriate CPV code, and no disputes are reported. However, the initial 'Type: None' and 'Procedure: None' are data entry oversights. The lack of upfront disclosure of mandatory exclusion grounds, detailed eligibility, technical, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria in the public notice, deferring them to the e-tendering portal post-registration, raises transparency concerns. The classified value also impacts compliance with full disclosure principles.

The description of the PDPS, its purpose, the portal change, and the registration process for new suppliers is clear and unambiguous. However, the tender notice explicitly states that specific mandatory exclusion grounds, technical capability requirements, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria are not detailed in the notice and are only available upon registration on the InTend portal. This significantly diminishes the clarity of the actual tender requirements for potential bidders prior to committing to the registration process.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, description, CPV code, NUTS code, duration, and deadlines are provided. However, the estimated value is classified, and the 'Liable Person' field is empty. Crucially, the tender notice lacks comprehensive details regarding mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria, which are essential components of a complete tender package. These are deferred to the e-tendering portal, making the publicly available notice incomplete.

The tender supports e-procurement, which generally promotes equal access. However, the classified estimated value and, more critically, the requirement to register on the InTend portal to access detailed eligibility, technical, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria create a barrier to full transparency and equal access for initial assessment. This lack of upfront information makes it challenging for potential suppliers to objectively assess their suitability and the competitiveness of the opportunity before investing time in registration, potentially limiting the pool of informed bidders. There is no information to suggest tailoring, but the lack of detail itself is a fairness concern.

The tender explicitly supports e-procurement via the InTend portal, with a clear URL and contact information for support. The contract duration is clearly specified. While the contract start date (2021) is in the past, it is consistent with an ongoing PDPS. The main drawback is the classified financial value, which limits practical business planning for potential suppliers.

Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. The description clarifies the 'Type: None' entry. Dates are largely consistent with an ongoing PDPS (originally 2018 for 10 years, submission deadline 2028, contract start 2021 for 84 months ending 2028). However, the 'Liable Person' is missing, and the reference number (2021) and contract start date (2021) are slightly incongruous with the PDPS's original 2018 advertisement, though understandable in the context of an ongoing system.

The tender notice does not include any specific requirements or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is not explicitly stated as EU funded. This indicates a lack of focus on sustainability criteria within this particular procurement.