Pseudo-DPS for Subcontracting of ESFA Funded Training Provision

This tender establishes a pseudo-Dynamic Purchasing System for ESFA-funded adult education, demonstrating good basic information and e-procurement support, but significantly hampered by the absence of disclosed evaluation criteria and a classified estimated value.

The tender provides reasonable deadlines, a clearly defined procedure type (Restricted/pseudo-DPS), and appropriate CPV codes. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the classified estimated value and missing reveal date slightly detract from full transparency, though not necessarily a legal non-compliance for a DPS.

The description of the pseudo-DPS and its purpose is clear and unambiguous. Requirements are well-documented and understandable. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria for appointment to the pseudo-DPS significantly impacts the clarity of the selection process.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, and contract duration are provided. Documents are available and summarized. However, the estimated value is not disclosed (classified), and crucially, the evaluation criteria for supplier selection are missing, representing significant gaps.

The tender benefits from reasonable deadlines for preparation and states 'E-Procurement' for equal access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the classified estimated value and the complete absence of evaluation criteria for appointment to the pseudo-DPS severely undermine the objectivity and transparency of the process, making it difficult for bidders to compete fairly.

The tender indicates 'E-Procurement' is supported, which is a positive for practical submission. Contract duration is specified. However, an explicit document URL is not provided in the basic information, and the contract start date is not precisely known beyond the duration from appointment. There is also a contradiction regarding e-submission in the automated checks.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. A minor inconsistency exists between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the automated check's 'No e-submission' flag, but overall data integrity is good.

The tender does not explicitly include green procurement, social criteria (beyond the inherent social benefit of adult education), or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.