Legal Compliance75/100
The tender correctly identifies itself as a Pseudo DPS under the Light-Touch Regime (PCR 2015 Regulations 74-77), which allows for procedural flexibility. However, the explicit non-application of formal PCR 2015 rules and the absence of specific mandatory exclusion grounds or financial requirements, while permissible under LTR, represent a less robust approach to supplier vetting. The 'Over Sum Limit: No' for a €230M contract is also questionable.
•Absence of specific mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements (though permissible under LTR)
•'Over Sum Limit: No' for €230M is questionable
Clarity60/100
The description of the services and the Pseudo DPS mechanism is clear and understandable. Eligibility and technical requirements are also well-defined. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria for admission to the DPS significantly reduces clarity for potential bidders on how their applications will be assessed.
•No evaluation criteria specified
Completeness65/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and CPV code is provided. Requirements for eligibility, technical capability, and submission are outlined. However, the tender is incomplete due to the critical omission of evaluation criteria and the limited provision of tender documents (only a contract notice summary). The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Limited tender documents provided (only contract notice summary)
Fairness55/100
The tender benefits from a very long submission deadline, allowing ample time for preparation, and the estimated value is disclosed. However, the complete absence of evaluation criteria is a significant fairness concern, as it introduces subjectivity and a lack of transparency into the selection process for DPS admission. There is also a contradiction regarding e-submission capabilities.
•No evaluation criteria specified
•Contradiction regarding e-submission
Practicality60/100
The tender specifies a contract duration and estimated value. However, the 'Contract Start' date being in the past (2023-05-25) while the submission deadline is in the future (2026-09-01) creates confusion regarding the tender's current status (new establishment vs. ongoing open DPS). The lack of a direct document URL and the contradiction regarding e-submission also pose practical hurdles.
•Past 'Contract Start' date for a tender with a future submission deadline
•No direct document URL provided
Data Consistency40/100
There are several inconsistencies: the 'Contract Start' date is in the past relative to the submission deadline, the estimated value is listed in EUR while the document summary mentions GBP, the procedure type is listed as 'Restricted' but described as a 'Pseudo DPS under LTR,' and there's a contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and 'No e-submission' flag. The 'Over Sum Limit: No' for €230M is also highly inconsistent with standard thresholds.
•Inconsistent dates (Contract Start vs. Submission Deadline)
•Currency inconsistency (EUR vs. GBP)
Sustainability60/100
The tender explicitly includes 'Social Criteria' and the nature of the services (health and social work for vulnerable individuals) inherently addresses significant social aspects, which is a strong positive. However, there is no mention of green procurement initiatives or a focus on innovation.
•No explicit mention of green procurement
•No innovation focus