DPS for the provision of Secure Construction Works (UK)

Overall, the tender documentation is largely clear and meets basic requirements, but significant gaps in transparency and completeness reduce its overall quality. The use of a DPS is appropriate for the nature of the works.

Legal compliance is good, with a clearly defined procedure type and CPV code, and no disputes. Concerns include the classified value, missing evaluation criteria, and the absence of a reveal date, which impact transparency.

The description and AI-extracted eligibility and technical requirements are clear and unambiguous. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria reduces the clarity of the overall procurement process.

Basic information, duration, and location are provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, specific financial requirements are not detailed in the summary, and evaluation criteria are entirely missing, representing significant gaps.

The requirements, while specialized, do not appear tailored to a specific company, and e-procurement is enabled. However, the classified value and the absence of evaluation criteria significantly impact transparency and fairness for potential bidders.

The contract duration is clearly specified. Practicality is reduced by the contradiction regarding e-submission support, the past contract start date for an active DPS, and the lack of disclosed value and specific financial requirements.

The data is largely consistent, particularly for a Dynamic Purchasing System where the contract start date can refer to the DPS establishment. Minor gaps like 'Liable Person' and the e-submission contradiction are noted but do not severely undermine overall consistency.

The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, indicating a neutral stance on sustainability criteria based on the provided information.