Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) assessments

This tender for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessments provides a clear service description but is significantly hampered by practical and data consistency issues, notably the lack of e-submission and conflicting contract duration details. While basic legal compliance is met, clarity and completeness are reduced by sparse AI-extracted requirements and non-centralized evaluation criteria.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes appropriately, and there are no reported disputes. The submission period from today's date is reasonable. However, the codes for the procedure type are missing, and evaluation criteria are not explicitly in the main tender description, though mentioned in a document summary.

The service description is clear and unambiguous. However, the AI-extracted requirements are notably sparse, stating "None explicitly mentioned," which is a significant gap. Evaluation criteria are only found in a document summary, not centrally presented, and performance conditions are vaguely stated.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, and duration (though inconsistent) is provided, and documents are attached. However, the detailed requirements and comprehensive evaluation criteria are not fully defined or easily accessible within the main tender description or AI-extracted sections, impacting overall completeness.

The tender provides objective evaluation criteria (40% quality, 60% price) and requirements appear generic. However, the absence of e-submission significantly hinders equal access for all potential bidders. The "single supplier" approach for a variable volume service might also limit competition, and the "Value Classified: Yes" alongside a stated value creates ambiguity.

Practicality is severely impacted by the lack of electronic submission and the absence of a direct document URL. Furthermore, there is a critical inconsistency regarding the contract duration, stated as "24 months" in basic info but "2-6 years" in document summaries, which creates significant uncertainty for bidders.

The most significant data inconsistency is the conflicting information regarding contract duration (24 months in basic info versus 2-6 years in document summaries). Minor inconsistencies include missing codes for procedure type and the ambiguous "Value Classified: Yes" despite the estimated value being disclosed.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social criteria (beyond the inherent nature of the service), or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to promote broader sustainability objectives within the procurement process.