Legal Compliance75/100
The tender defines the procedure as a DPS and uses appropriate CPV codes. The use of SPD suggests compliance with standard procurement frameworks. No disputes are reported. However, the estimated value is classified, and the reveal date is missing, which are minor disclosure issues.
•Estimated value is classified and not disclosed
•Missing reveal date
Clarity80/100
The description of the DPS's purpose, scope, and lot structure is clear. Requirements are categorized well, but specific details for 'minimum entry criteria' and 'evaluation criteria' are not provided directly, instead referring to the Single Procurement Document (SPD).
•Specific evaluation criteria for joining the DPS are not detailed
•Detailed requirements rely heavily on external SPD without direct inclusion
Completeness70/100
Basic information, duration, and location are well-specified. Documents are referenced. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the specific 'minimum entry criteria' and 'evaluation criteria' are not fully defined within the provided tender information, requiring reference to the SPD.
•Estimated value is not disclosed
•Specific evaluation criteria are not fully defined in the provided text
Fairness85/100
The DPS structure, being open for new applicants throughout its lifetime and divided into parts, promotes fair access. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the classified value and the absence of specific evaluation criteria in the main tender text reduce transparency.
•Estimated value is classified and not disclosed
•Specific evaluation criteria are not transparently detailed in the provided text
Practicality65/100
The tender specifies a 48-month duration. While 'E-Procurement' is listed as a characteristic, the automated check flags 'No e-submission', which is a significant contradiction impacting practicality. A direct document URL is not provided.
•Contradiction regarding 'E-Procurement' characteristic versus 'No e-submission' flag
•No explicit document URL provided for the SPD
Data Consistency90/100
Most key fields are populated, and the tender is active with no disputes. Dates are logical for a DPS. The primary inconsistency is the contradiction between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' automated check result.
•Contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and 'No e-submission' automated check
Sustainability50/100
The tender explicitly includes an 'Innovation Focus', which is a positive aspect. However, it lacks specific mention of green procurement or social criteria, as confirmed by automated checks.
•No explicit green procurement criteria mentioned
•No explicit social criteria mentioned