Dynamic Purchasing System for Landscaping, Groundworks & Green Spaces

This tender for a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) demonstrates good clarity on services and generous deadlines, but is significantly hampered by missing evaluation criteria and notable data inconsistencies.

The tender generally adheres to public procurement principles, utilizing a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) which is a recognized procedure. However, there is an inconsistency in the stated procedure type (Restricted vs. DPS) and a lack of explicit evaluation criteria for DPS admission, which could be a compliance risk if not detailed in full documents.

The tender's description and AI-extracted requirements are clear and understandable regarding the services sought and general supplier qualifications. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria for admission to the DPS significantly reduces clarity on the assessment process.

Essential information such as title, organization, value, duration, and CPV codes are provided. However, the tender lacks explicit evaluation criteria for DPS admission, which is a critical omission. The discrepancy between the total number of documents and those with content summaries also suggests potential gaps in the provided information for analysis.

The requirements for suppliers are generic and do not appear tailored to a specific company, promoting broad participation. The extended submission deadline for DPS admission is highly favorable for bidders. However, the absence of clear evaluation criteria for admission could compromise transparency and objectivity in the assessment process. The contradiction regarding e-submission also raises concerns about equal access.

The tender's practicality is hampered by a contradiction regarding electronic submission capabilities ("E-Procurement" characteristic vs. "No e-submission" issue). The absence of a direct document URL and an unspecified contract start date also present minor practical hurdles for potential bidders.

Significant inconsistencies exist, particularly concerning the procedure type (listed as "Restricted" but described as a "Dynamic Purchasing System") and the e-procurement functionality (stated as "E-Procurement" characteristic but flagged as "No e-submission"). The "Liable Person" field is also unpopulated.

The tender demonstrates minimal focus on sustainability, with no explicit green procurement, social criteria, or innovation aspects beyond a general requirement to adhere to environmental management standards. It is not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.