YPO - 001051 Insurance Placement DPS For Housing sector

This tender for a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) demonstrates good foundational elements but suffers from critical omissions regarding evaluation criteria, significantly impacting clarity and fairness. While basic information is present and e-procurement is enabled, the lack of transparency on how suppliers will be judged is a major concern.

The tender appears generally compliant with procurement regulations, defining the procedure as a DPS and correctly assigning CPV codes. The long submission deadline (2030) is typical for a DPS, mitigating concerns about preparation time, despite a 'missing reveal date' which is a data point issue rather than a deadline reasonableness issue for continuous application.

The overall description of the DPS and its purpose is clear. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria and the lack of detailed financial and mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary significantly reduce the clarity for potential bidders.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, value, and duration are provided. However, the explicit lack of evaluation criteria and the absence of detailed financial/exclusion requirements in the summary indicate significant gaps in the readily available information.

The tender's fairness is severely compromised by the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria. While requirements appear generic and e-procurement is enabled, bidders cannot adequately prepare or trust a process where the judging standards are unknown. The estimated value is disclosed, which is positive.

Electronic submission via the Due North portal is supported, which is practical. Key dates like contract start and duration are clearly specified. The absence of a direct document URL in the provided information is a minor practical inconvenience.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent for a DPS. There are no disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and a slight ambiguity between 'Restricted' procedure type and the clear description of a DPS.

The inclusion of 'Social Criteria' is a positive aspect, indicating a consideration for social sustainability. However, there is no explicit mention of green procurement practices or innovation focus, limiting its overall sustainability score.