West England Forest District Planting and Maintenance DPS

This tender for a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) for forestry services provides clear service descriptions and basic information but suffers from significant gaps in detailed requirements, particularly the absence of evaluation criteria and specific financial details. While the requirements are generic, the lack of e-submission and transparency in assessment criteria are notable concerns.

The tender clearly defines the procedure as a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) and assigns an appropriate CPV code. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the 'Liable Person' field is empty, and a 'Missing reveal date' is noted, which are minor transparency and disclosure gaps. The use of a DPS is compliant with modern procurement practices.

The overall description of the service (forestry planting and maintenance) and the use of a DPS is clear. The types of requirements (mandatory exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, submission) are listed. However, the specific details for 'MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS' and 'FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS' are 'Not specified', and critically, 'No evaluation criteria specified' is a major clarity deficiency, making it difficult for suppliers to understand how their applications will be assessed.

The tender provides essential basic information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and contract duration. A document is attached. However, the completeness is significantly hampered by the lack of detailed 'MANDATORY EXCLUSION GROUNDS' and 'FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS' and the complete absence of 'evaluation criteria'. The 'Liable Person' field is also empty.

The tender discloses the estimated value and the technical requirements appear generic, not tailored to a specific company. The DPS nature allows for continuous application, promoting broader access. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria severely impacts transparency and objectivity, making it difficult for suppliers to understand the basis of admission. The flag 'No e-submission' also indicates a potential barrier to equal access and modern procurement practices.

The contract duration is clearly specified. However, the tender lacks support for electronic submission ('No e-submission'), which is a significant practical drawback in modern procurement. The contract start date is not provided, and specific financing information beyond the estimated value is absent. A direct document URL is not explicitly provided in the summary, though documents are indicated as available.

The tender data is largely consistent, with key fields like title, reference, organization, description, deadline, value, and CPV code populated. There are no reported disputes or suspensions, and the status is active. Minor inconsistencies include the empty 'Liable Person' field and the 'Missing reveal date'. The long submission deadline is consistent with a DPS.

The tender information provided does not include any explicit mention of green procurement criteria, social aspects, or an innovation focus. It is also noted as 'Not EU funded,' which often correlates with higher sustainability standards in EU-wide tenders. This indicates a lack of integration of sustainability principles.