Complex Needs DPS

This tender for a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) provides a clear service description and disclosed value, but suffers from significant clarity and completeness issues due to missing detailed requirements and evaluation criteria, alongside notable data inconsistencies.

The tender correctly identifies the CPV code and reports no disputes. However, there is a contradiction between 'Restricted procedure' and 'Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS)', which needs clarification. The summary also lacks specific mandatory exclusion grounds, which are typically required for full compliance, even if detailed in full documents.

While the service description is clear, the tender summary explicitly states a lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical, financial, and crucially, evaluation criteria. This significantly hinders clarity for potential bidders.

Basic information like title, organization, description, value, and duration are present. However, the summary is incomplete regarding critical aspects such as detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, technical capabilities, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria.

The estimated value is disclosed, and eligibility requirements are broad, suggesting no tailoring. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major concern for transparency and objectivity, potentially impacting fairness. The contradiction regarding e-submission also raises questions about equal access.

The tender lists 'E-Procurement' as a characteristic, but automated checks flag 'No e-submission', which is a significant practical concern. While documents are available, an explicit URL is not provided, and a specific contract start date for the DPS itself is not detailed.

There are multiple significant inconsistencies: the procedure type (Restricted vs DPS), the currency of the estimated value (£ vs €), and the status of e-submission ('E-Procurement' characteristic vs 'No e-submission' issue). The liable person is also missing.

The tender summary and automated checks indicate a lack of explicit green procurement, social criteria (beyond the core service itself), or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.