Central Forest District Planting DPS

This tender for forestry planting services utilizes a DPS, providing a clear overall objective and generic requirements. However, it suffers from significant gaps in clarity and completeness, notably the absence of evaluation criteria, detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, and practical issues like no e-submission or direct document access.

The tender defines the procedure type (Restricted, DPS) and assigns an appropriate CPV code. No disputes are reported. However, the absence of a 'reveal date' and the lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds are notable omissions that impact transparency and full legal disclosure.

The overall description of the service and the use of a DPS is clear. However, the tender lacks specific evaluation criteria, which is a critical omission for bidders. The AI-extracted requirements are generic and lack the detailed metrics or thresholds necessary for clear understanding and preparation.

Basic information such as title, organization, reference, value, and duration are provided. However, the tender is incomplete regarding crucial details like specific evaluation criteria, detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, and comprehensive technical/financial requirement specifics. Only one document summary is provided, without a direct access link.

The requirements appear generic and not tailored, which is positive for fairness. The long submission deadline provides ample preparation time. However, the explicit absence of evaluation criteria significantly compromises transparency and objectivity. The lack of e-submission and a direct document URL also create potential barriers to equal access for all potential bidders.

The tender's practicality is significantly hampered by the absence of electronic submission capabilities, which is a standard expectation in modern procurement. Furthermore, no direct URL is provided for accessing the tender documents, creating a practical barrier for interested parties. A specific contract start date is also not provided.

Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical. However, there is a notable inconsistency in the estimated value, stated as EUR 2,000,000 in the basic information but as GBP 2,000,000 in the document summary. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.

The tender shows a significant lack of focus on sustainability. There are no indications of green procurement criteria, social aspects, or an emphasis on innovation. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.