Legal Compliance75/100
The procedure type and CPV codes are clearly defined, and the long submission deadline is appropriate for a DPS. However, the summary lacks explicit mention of mandatory exclusion grounds, which are typically a standard legal requirement, and the 'missing reveal date' is a minor data point issue.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary.
•Missing reveal date.
Clarity60/100
The overall description of the DPS purpose and scope is clear. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria for DPS appointment, along with missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements in the summary, significantly reduces the clarity of the selection process.
•No evaluation criteria specified for DPS appointment.
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds explicitly mentioned in the summary.
Completeness65/100
Basic information such as title, organization, value, and duration are well-defined. Nevertheless, the tender summary is incomplete regarding critical details like comprehensive evaluation criteria for DPS appointment, mandatory exclusion grounds, and specific financial requirements.
•Missing comprehensive evaluation criteria for DPS appointment.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds in the summary.
Fairness60/100
The tender discloses the estimated value and indicates e-procurement, promoting equal access. The long deadline for DPS application is also fair. However, the explicit lack of specified evaluation criteria for DPS appointment is a significant concern, as it could lead to subjective and non-transparent selection processes.
•No evaluation criteria specified for DPS appointment, impacting transparency and objectivity.
Practicality70/100
The tender supports e-procurement and clearly specifies the contract duration. While a direct document URL is not provided in the summary, and specific contract start dates are inherent to a DPS, these are minor points given the overall structure.
•Document URL not explicitly provided in the summary.
Data Consistency80/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical for a DPS. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. Minor inconsistencies include an empty 'Liable Person' field and 'Code: N/A' for procedure type, but these do not critically impact the tender's integrity.
•Liable Person field is empty.
•Type and Procedure codes are 'N/A'.
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly includes 'Social Criteria' and inherently serves a social purpose through the Health and Social Care Network. However, it lacks explicit mention of green procurement initiatives or an innovation focus, which are increasingly important aspects of modern public procurement.
•No explicit focus on green procurement.
•No explicit innovation focus.