Greater South East Energy Hub Trades DPS

This tender for a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) is significantly hampered by critical missing information, particularly regarding legal compliance, evaluation criteria, and financial transparency, which severely impacts its overall quality and fairness.

The tender critically lacks mandatory exclusion grounds, specific financial requirements, and evaluation criteria, which are fundamental for legal compliance. The classification of a DPS as a 'Restricted procedure' is also confusing and potentially misleading.

While the overall purpose of the DPS is clear, the absence of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, financial requirements, and especially evaluation criteria significantly diminishes the clarity for potential applicants on how their submissions will be assessed.

Key information such as the estimated value, the full duration of the DPS, mandatory exclusion grounds, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria are either missing or not explicitly detailed in the provided summary. The liable person is also not specified.

The lack of disclosed estimated value and, critically, the complete absence of evaluation criteria severely undermine the transparency and objectivity of the procurement process, making it difficult for bidders to prepare competitive applications fairly. Requirements appear generic, which is a positive.

The tender states 'E-Procurement' but an automated check flags 'No e-submission,' creating a contradiction. The absence of a disclosed value and the DPS's overall duration also impact practical planning for potential bidders.

There are several inconsistencies, including the 'E-Procurement' characteristic versus the 'No e-submission' flag, the 'Restricted' procedure label for a DPS, and the 'Value Classified: Yes' alongside 'Over Sum Limit: No' without actual value disclosure. Key fields like liable person and duration are also missing.

The core subject of the tender, 'Energy Efficiency Measure,' inherently contributes to environmental sustainability. However, there is no explicit mention of broader social aspects, innovation focus, or EU funding, which would typically indicate a more comprehensive sustainability approach.