Legal Compliance75/100
The tender correctly uses a CPV code and has no reported disputes. However, it incorrectly classifies the procedure as 'Restricted' while describing a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS), which is a specific type of open procedure. The reveal date is also missing, which is a transparency concern.
•Incorrect classification of DPS as 'Restricted procedure'
•Missing tender reveal date
Clarity80/100
The description of the DPS purpose and scope is clear. Eligibility and technical capability requirements are outlined. However, crucial evaluation criteria are not specified in this notice, and detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements are deferred to an external Selection Questionnaire (SQ).
•No evaluation criteria specified in the notice
•Mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements not detailed in the initial notice
Completeness70/100
Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and CPV code are provided. However, the full tender documentation, including the Selection Questionnaire and detailed terms, requires access via an external website. Crucially, evaluation criteria are entirely missing from the provided information.
•Evaluation criteria are not defined
•Full tender documents require external access, not directly attached
Fairness85/100
The estimated value is disclosed, and requirements appear generic, not tailored. E-procurement is indicated, promoting equal access. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly impacts transparency and objectivity, potentially hindering fair competition. The missing reveal date also makes it difficult to assess the reasonableness of preparation time from initial publication.
•No evaluation criteria specified, impacting transparency and objectivity
•Missing tender reveal date, affecting assessment of preparation time fairness
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission is supported via the provided external URL, which is practical for a DPS. The duration is clearly specified. However, a specific contract start date is not provided, and full financing details beyond the estimated value are absent.
•Contract start date is not specified
•Full financing details beyond estimated value are not available
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a significant inconsistency in classifying the procedure as 'Restricted' while describing a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS). The 'Liable Person' field is also empty, and the reference number suggests an earlier initiation than the current date without a reveal date.
•Inconsistent procedure classification (Restricted vs. DPS)
•Missing 'Liable Person' field
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly mentions an 'Innovation Focus', which is a positive aspect. However, there is no mention of green procurement criteria or social aspects, indicating a missed opportunity to integrate broader sustainability goals.
•No explicit green procurement criteria
•No explicit social criteria