SEPD DPS for Flexibility Services in Southern England - 2022 onwards

This tender for Flexibility Services via a DPS provides clear basic information and a generous timeline, but suffers from significant gaps in transparency and completeness, particularly regarding evaluation criteria and detailed requirements.

The tender clearly defines the procedure type (DPS) and CPV codes. The submission deadline is exceptionally long, ensuring ample time for preparation. No disputes or suspensions are noted. However, the summary lacks detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements, which, while directing bidders to full documents, represents a gap in immediate transparency.

The tender's description and core eligibility/technical requirements are clear and understandable. However, the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major clarity issue. Additionally, the lack of detail for mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements in the summary reduces overall clarity.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, CPV, and NUTS code are well-provided. Documents are indicated as available. However, the tender is significantly incomplete due to the absence of specified evaluation criteria and the lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements in the provided summary.

The disclosed value and generic nature of the requirements (not tailored) contribute positively to fairness. The submission deadline is very generous. However, the complete lack of evaluation criteria severely undermines transparency and objectivity, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed. The absence of e-submission also limits equal access.

The tender's practicality is significantly hampered by the absence of electronic submission, which is a standard expectation in modern procurement. While the duration is specified, the contract start date is not, which can affect bidder planning. Document access is implied but a direct URL is not provided in the snippet.

Key fields are largely populated, and dates are logical and consistent (e.g., long submission deadline). There are no reported suspensions or disputes. Minor omissions like 'Liable Person' and 'Missing reveal date' are present but do not indicate major inconsistencies.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This suggests a lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria.