Legal Compliance50/100
The absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and clear evaluation criteria for DPS approval are significant legal compliance deficiencies. While the procedure type and CPV are correct, these omissions are fundamental for fair and lawful procurement.
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds detailed
•No evaluation criteria specified for DPS approval
Clarity55/100
While the overall description is clear and some requirements are well-stated, the critical absence of evaluation criteria for DPS approval, mandatory exclusion grounds, and specific financial requirements creates significant ambiguity for potential applicants.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds detailed
Completeness50/100
The tender is significantly incomplete due to the absence of crucial information such as mandatory exclusion grounds, specific financial requirements, and, most importantly, the criteria by which suppliers will be approved to join the DPS. The estimated value is also not disclosed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds detailed
Fairness50/100
The lack of transparent and objective evaluation criteria for DPS approval is a major fairness concern, as suppliers cannot understand how their applications will be judged. The classified value also reduces transparency, although requirements appear generic.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Estimated value not disclosed
Practicality75/100
The tender benefits from supporting e-procurement and being divided into parts, which enhances practicality for bidders. The DPS structure itself is practical for ongoing needs, despite the lack of disclosed value and explicit DPS duration.
•Financing information (value) not available
•Duration of the DPS not explicitly stated
Data Consistency85/100
The data provided is largely consistent, with key fields populated and no disputes. The missing reveal date is a minor data gap for a DPS, and the discrepancy regarding e-submission is noted but the explicit characteristic takes precedence.
Sustainability25/100
The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green, social (beyond the service's core purpose), or innovation-focused procurement criteria, resulting in a low sustainability score.
•Not green procurement
•No social criteria explicitly included