Public Health England - Weight Management Services

This tender for Adult Weight Management Services establishes a Dynamic Purchasing System but suffers from significant procedural mislabeling and a critical absence of evaluation criteria, impacting clarity, completeness, and fairness.

The tender fundamentally mislabels the procurement procedure, stating "Restricted procedure" while describing a "Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS)". These are distinct procedures under PCR 2015. This contradiction creates significant legal ambiguity. Additionally, stating "Over Sum Limit: No" for a 30M EUR contract is questionable for EU procurement thresholds.

While the service description is clear, the fundamental contradiction in the procedure type (Restricted vs. DPS) introduces significant ambiguity. Crucially, the tender explicitly lacks any specified evaluation criteria, making it impossible for bidders to understand how their applications will be judged.

Basic information like title, value, and duration is present. However, the critical absence of evaluation criteria for admission to the DPS is a major deficiency. Only a summary of one document is provided, raising questions about the completeness of accessible tender documentation.

The complete lack of specified evaluation criteria severely compromises the fairness and transparency of the admission process, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions. While requirements appear generic, the contradiction regarding e-submission (E-Procurement characteristic vs. "No e-submission" flag) also raises concerns about equal access.

The tender lacks a direct URL for accessing full tender documents, which is a practical hurdle for potential bidders. There's a contradiction regarding e-submission support, making the application process unclear. The contract duration is clear, but a specific start date is not provided.

Significant inconsistencies exist, primarily the contradiction between the stated "Restricted procedure" and the described "Dynamic Purchasing System". Further inconsistencies include the "E-Procurement" characteristic versus the "No e-submission" flag, and the "Over Sum Limit: No" for a substantial contract value.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement, social criteria beyond the inherent nature of the service, or innovation focus. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate broader sustainability objectives into the procurement process.