Legal Compliance75/100
The tender states compliance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which is appropriate for a UK-based procurement. The DPS procedure type is clearly defined. However, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria for admission to the DPS is a transparency concern, even if specific contract criteria are defined later.
•Absence of explicit evaluation criteria for admission to the DPS
Clarity80/100
The description of the services, DPS structure, duration, and lots is clear and unambiguous. AI-extracted requirements are well-categorized and understandable. The primary clarity issue stems from the lack of specified evaluation criteria for DPS admission.
•No explicit evaluation criteria specified for admission to the DPS
Completeness70/100
Basic information, estimated value, and duration are provided. Requirements are defined, but the critical absence of evaluation criteria for DPS admission is a significant gap. Only one of four listed documents is provided in the tender information, suggesting potential incompleteness of the provided data.
•Missing explicit evaluation criteria for admission to the DPS
•Only 1 of 4 tender documents provided (in the input data)
Fairness65/100
The requirements appear generic and not tailored to a specific company. The Dynamic Purchasing System allows for continuous supplier admission, which promotes fairness. However, the lack of transparent evaluation criteria for DPS admission significantly impacts the objectivity and fairness of the selection process. The contradiction regarding e-procurement/e-submission also raises concerns about equal access.
•Absence of explicit and transparent evaluation criteria for admission to the DPS
•Contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and 'No e-submission' automated check
Practicality65/100
The contradiction between 'E-Procurement' being a characteristic and the automated check flagging 'No e-submission' is a significant practical concern, potentially hindering electronic application. A document URL is not provided in the given information.
•Contradiction regarding e-submission capabilities
•Document URL not provided
Data Consistency60/100
There are notable inconsistencies: the estimated value is listed as EUR 230,000,000 but described as GBP 230,000,000. Furthermore, the tender is characterized as 'E-Procurement' while automated checks indicate 'No e-submission', which is a direct contradiction. The 'Liable Person' field is empty.
•Inconsistency in estimated value currency (EUR vs. GBP)
•Contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and 'No e-submission' automated check
Sustainability20/100
The tender description and requirements do not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects (beyond the service provision itself), or innovation focus. This indicates a lack of integration of sustainability criteria.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social criteria for suppliers