Legal Compliance60/100
The tender has notable gaps in legal compliance. The AI-extracted information explicitly states a lack of specific mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements, which are typically essential under procurement regulations. The 'Liable Person' is also missing. While the DPS structure with a long submission deadline is appropriate, the missing 'reveal date' for a system that started in 2021 makes it difficult to fully assess initial compliance.
•Missing specific mandatory exclusion grounds
•Missing specific financial requirements
Clarity55/100
While the overall purpose of the DPS is clear, the tender significantly lacks clarity regarding the admission process. There are no evaluation criteria specified, and the eligibility, technical, and financial requirements are presented at a very high, generic level, making it difficult for potential suppliers to understand the precise expectations for admission.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Eligibility, technical, and financial requirements are high-level and lack detail
Completeness50/100
The tender is incomplete in several critical areas. Key information such as the liable person, specific mandatory exclusion grounds, detailed financial requirements, and crucially, evaluation criteria are missing. The provided tender documents are limited to a single, very brief summary, suggesting a lack of comprehensive documentation readily available.
•Missing liable person
•Missing specific mandatory exclusion grounds
Fairness50/100
The absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as it introduces subjectivity into the supplier admission process and prevents equal understanding of assessment standards. While the high-level requirements do not appear tailored, the lack of transparency in assessment methods could lead to an unfair process. Full document access without registration is also unclear.
•No evaluation criteria specified, leading to lack of transparency
•Potential for subjective assessment due to missing criteria
Practicality80/100
The tender demonstrates good practicality by supporting electronic submission via the Proactis e-tendering system, with a clear URL provided. The contract start date and duration are clearly specified. However, specific financing details beyond the estimated value, such as payment terms, are not detailed in the provided information.
•No specific financing details (e.g., payment terms) beyond the estimated value
Data Consistency85/100
Most key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. The contract start date being in the past (2021) is consistent with an active Dynamic Purchasing System that is open for new suppliers to join. The 'Liable Person' field is missing, and the 'Over Sum Limit: No' for a €150M contract could be seen as a minor inconsistency, though potentially justifiable by national thresholds or individual call-off values.
•Liable Person missing
•'Over Sum Limit: No' for a €150M contract could be a minor inconsistency
Sustainability20/100
The tender completely lacks any explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This indicates a significant oversight in integrating modern sustainability principles into the procurement process, which is a critical area for public tenders today.
•No green procurement criteria
•No social criteria