The City of Liverpool College - Dynamic Purchasing System - Adult Education Budget (Liverpool City Region)

This tender for a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) is generally well-structured with clear objectives, but it suffers from critical omissions regarding evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and financial thresholds, impacting its overall quality and transparency.

The tender correctly identifies itself as a Dynamic Purchasing System under the Light Touch Regime, appropriate for adult education services, and the CPV code is accurate. However, the AI summary explicitly states that mandatory exclusion grounds and specific financial thresholds are not detailed, which are fundamental requirements for legal compliance. The missing reveal date is also a procedural oversight.

The overall description of the DPS, its purpose, duration, and two-stage process is clear and easy to understand. The AI-extracted eligibility and technical requirements are also clearly stated. However, a significant drawback is the explicit flag that 'No evaluation criteria specified,' which is crucial for bidders to understand how their submissions will be judged.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and CPV code are all present. Location information is also provided. However, the tender lacks explicit details on mandatory exclusion grounds, financial thresholds, and, critically, the evaluation criteria. The 'Official PDF Version' is mentioned but its content is only briefly summarized, suggesting a lack of full detail in the provided text.

The tender benefits from being a Dynamic Purchasing System, which allows new entrants throughout its 10-year lifespan, promoting broad access and fairness. The estimated value is disclosed, and the requirements appear generic and not tailored. The characteristic of 'E-Procurement' suggests equal access, though there's a contradiction with an automated check. The primary concern for fairness is the absence of specified evaluation criteria, which can lead to subjective assessment.

The duration of the DPS is clearly specified, and the estimated value is known. However, a direct URL for tender documents is not provided, which hinders easy access. There is a contradiction between 'E-Procurement' being a characteristic and the automated check flagging 'No e-submission,' which is a critical practical aspect for bidders. No specific contract start date is given, though the initial 12-month contract period is mentioned.

Most key fields are populated, and there are no indications of disputes or suspensions. Dates are logical and consistent with the nature of a long-term DPS. Minor inconsistencies include the empty 'Liable Person' field and the 'N/A' codes for procedure type. The contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' is the most notable inconsistency.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement aspects, social criteria, or an innovation focus. While not actively detrimental, the absence of these considerations means it does not contribute positively to sustainability goals, which are increasingly important in public procurement. It is also not EU funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards.