Legal Compliance75/100
The use of a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) is a compliant procurement tool. However, the tender incorrectly classifies the procedure as 'Restricted procedure' instead of an open procedure, which is a notable inconsistency. The missing explicit reveal date is a minor data point issue.
•Misclassification of DPS as 'Restricted procedure'
•Missing explicit reveal date
Clarity70/100
The description of the DPS and its operational model is clear and unambiguous. However, the tender lacks explicit details regarding the award criteria for the subsequent mini-competitions, which is a significant gap in clarity for potential bidders.
•Lack of specified award criteria for mini-competitions
Completeness70/100
Most basic information, including title, reference, organization, value, duration, and CPV code, is provided. However, the award criteria for mini-competitions are not defined. Financial and mandatory exclusion grounds are referenced to the Selection Questionnaire rather than being detailed in the notice itself. The 'Required: No' status for the official PDF document is also an inconsistency.
•Award criteria for mini-competitions not defined
•Lack of detailed financial and mandatory exclusion grounds in the main notice
Fairness85/100
The open nature of a DPS, allowing continuous application, coupled with full electronic operation and generic requirements, promotes broad market access and fairness. The disclosed value and reasonable deadlines for preparation are also positive. However, the absence of explicit award criteria for mini-competitions reduces full transparency for actual contract awards.
•Lack of explicit award criteria for mini-competitions reduces transparency
Practicality80/100
Electronic submission is fully supported with a direct URL to the e-tendering portal, enhancing practicality. The contract duration is clearly specified. While an explicit start date for individual call-offs is inherent to a DPS, the system's operational commencement is mentioned.
Data Consistency75/100
Key fields are populated, and dates are logical for a DPS. The primary inconsistency is the misclassification of the DPS as a 'Restricted procedure'. The 'Required: No' status for the PDF document is a minor data inconsistency.
•Misclassification of DPS as 'Restricted procedure'
•PDF document status 'Required: No'
Sustainability20/100
The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a significant area for improvement in line with modern procurement best practices.
•No mention of green procurement aspects
•No mention of social aspects