Legal Compliance75/100
The tender states compliance with PCR 2015 and correctly identifies the procedure as a DPS under Regulation 34. However, the basic information fields contradict this by listing 'Restricted procedure'. The estimated value is classified, and evaluation criteria are missing, which are concerns for mandatory disclosure requirements.
•Contradictory procedure type (Restricted vs. DPS) in basic information fields.
•Estimated value is classified and not disclosed.
Clarity60/100
While the overall objective of establishing a DPS is clear, the absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major clarity flaw. The stated 'Contract Duration: 1 month' and 'Contract Start' are highly ambiguous for a DPS framework, leading to confusion. Technical capability requirements are also vaguely defined.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•Ambiguous contract duration and start date for a Dynamic Purchasing System.
Completeness65/100
The tender provides basic information but is incomplete regarding critical details. The estimated value is not disclosed, and there are no specific financial requirements detailed. Crucially, evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as missing, which is a significant gap in completeness.
•Estimated value not disclosed.
•No specific financial requirements detailed.
Fairness55/100
The lack of specified evaluation criteria is a severe fairness issue, as bidders cannot understand how their proposals will be judged. The classified estimated value also reduces transparency. While 'E-Procurement' is listed, the automated check flags 'No e-submission', creating a contradiction that impacts equal access.
•No evaluation criteria specified.
•Estimated value not disclosed.
Practicality60/100
Practicality is hampered by contradictory information regarding e-submission. No direct document URL is provided in the summary. The contract duration and start date, while specified, are ambiguous in the context of a DPS, making it difficult for bidders to understand the practical implications.
•Contradiction on e-submission support.
•No direct document URL provided in the summary.
Data Consistency50/100
The tender exhibits significant data inconsistencies. The procedure type is listed as 'Restricted' while the description clearly states 'Dynamic Purchasing System'. The 'Contract Duration: 1 month' is illogical for a DPS framework. Furthermore, the 'E-Procurement' characteristic contradicts the 'No e-submission' flag.
•Contradictory procedure type (Restricted vs. DPS).
•Inconsistent contract duration (1 month) for a Dynamic Purchasing System framework.
Sustainability20/100
The tender makes no mention of any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This indicates a complete absence of sustainability considerations in the procurement process.
•No green procurement criteria.
•No social criteria.