Legal Compliance75/100
The tender outlines a legally sound Pseudo Dynamic Purchasing System (PDPS) structure, clearly defining the procedure type and assigning appropriate CPV codes. The continuous application process inherent to a PDPS is compliant with procurement principles. However, the lack of explicit evaluation criteria in the provided summary, even if available in full documents, is a minor transparency concern.
•Evaluation criteria not explicitly detailed in the provided summary.
Clarity80/100
The description of the PDPS, its purpose, and the division into lots is clear and unambiguous. The AI-extracted requirements are well-categorized and understandable. However, the frequent deferral to 'full procurement documents' for detailed specifications and the absence of explicit evaluation criteria in the summary reduce the overall clarity of the provided information.
•Detailed specifications and evaluation criteria are deferred to external documents.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified in the provided text.
Completeness70/100
The tender provides all essential basic information, including title, organization, reference, estimated value, duration, and CPV code. While high-level requirements are defined, the full details of core and lot specifications, financial requirements, and the precise evaluation methodology are not included in the provided text, requiring access to external documents.
•Detailed specifications and financial requirements are not fully present in the provided text.
•Evaluation criteria are not explicitly defined in the provided text.
Fairness85/100
The PDPS model, characterized by an open arrangement with no restrictions on the number of service providers and continuous application phases, inherently promotes high fairness and equal access. E-procurement is enabled, and requirements appear generic. The disclosed value and reasonable deadlines for a PDPS further enhance fairness, despite the summary's lack of explicit evaluation criteria.
•Evaluation criteria not explicitly detailed in the provided summary, potentially impacting full transparency for initial review.
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission is clearly supported, and a direct URL to procurement documents is provided, enhancing accessibility. The duration is specified, and financing information is available. However, the repeated need to consult external documents for full details reduces the practicality of relying solely on the provided summary. The 'contract start date' is not explicitly defined, which is typical for a PDPS but can be an ambiguity.
•Reliance on external documents for full practical details.
•Contract start date not explicitly defined for the PDPS.
Data Consistency90/100
The key fields are largely populated, and the data points such as estimated value, duration, and submission deadline are logical and consistent with the nature of a long-term PDPS. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor N/A codes for procedure type are negligible.
Sustainability50/100
The tender's core purpose, providing 'health and social work services' for adults, inherently addresses significant social aspects. However, the documentation does not explicitly include specific green procurement criteria, innovation focus, or broader social value clauses beyond the service provision itself.
•No explicit green procurement criteria.
•No explicit innovation focus.