Legal Compliance75/100
The tender explicitly states compliance with Regulation 34 of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and correctly identifies the procedure as a DPS. CPV codes are appropriate, and no disputes are noted. However, the estimated value is classified, which slightly impacts transparency, and the contract start date being in the past for an active tender is unusual.
•Estimated value is classified
•Contract start date (2022) is in the past relative to today's date (2026) and the submission deadline, which is unusual for a new tender announcement.
Clarity60/100
The description of the DPS's purpose and scope is clear and unambiguous. However, a major deficiency is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria for joining the DPS. Additionally, no specific financial requirements are provided, which leaves bidders without crucial information.
•No evaluation criteria specified for joining the DPS
•No specific financial requirements (e.g., minimum turnover, insurance) are provided
Completeness70/100
Basic information like title, organization, reference, deadlines, and duration are present. However, critical information such as specific financial requirements and, most importantly, evaluation criteria are missing. Only one of four documents is summarized, suggesting potential gaps in accessible information.
•Missing specific financial requirements for bidders
•Missing evaluation criteria for joining the DPS
Fairness65/100
The tender benefits from generic requirements that do not appear tailored and the use of e-procurement. However, the classified estimated value reduces transparency. The most significant fairness concern is the complete absence of evaluation criteria, making it impossible for bidders to understand how their applications will be judged.
•No evaluation criteria specified, hindering transparency and fair competition
•Estimated value is classified, reducing overall transparency
Practicality65/100
Electronic submission is supported, which is a positive for practicality. The duration is clearly specified. However, the contract start date being in the past creates confusion, and no specific document URL is provided. The lack of detailed financial requirements also impacts practical preparation for bidders.
•Contract start date (2022) is in the past, which is practically confusing for an active tender
•No specific document URL provided for direct access to tender documents
Data Consistency50/100
While many key fields are populated, the most significant inconsistency is the contract start date (2022-06-15) being well before today's date (2026-01-18) and the submission deadline (2026-05-15). This creates confusion about whether this is a new tender or an ongoing application window for an existing DPS. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.
•Contract start date (2022-06-15) is inconsistent with the current date and submission deadline, suggesting a lack of clarity on the tender's lifecycle
•The 'Liable Person' field is empty
Sustainability80/100
The tender explicitly incorporates strong sustainability aspects, listing 'Sustainability' as a key priority and mentioning 'social, economic and environmental priorities and responsibilities'. It also includes 'Social Criteria' as a characteristic, demonstrating a commitment to broader impact.
•No explicit mention of innovation focus