Legal Compliance100/100
The explicit statement that 'None of the formal procedural rules have any direct application' from PCR 2015, despite the tender being labelled 'Restricted procedure,' creates a legal ambiguity. The complete absence of mandatory exclusion grounds and specific financial requirements is a significant compliance risk, as even under LTR, general principles of procurement law (transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination) must be upheld.
•Contradiction between 'Restricted procedure' and explicit non-application of PCR 2015 rules
•Absence of mandatory exclusion grounds
Clarity40/100
The description of the 'Pseudo DPS' and LTR intent is somewhat clear, but the overall clarity is severely compromised by the complete lack of tender documents. Without these, the actual application process, detailed requirements, and operational specifics remain entirely opaque.
•Lack of detailed tender documents
•Ambiguity regarding the specific procedural rules applied
Completeness83/100
The tender information is critically incomplete due to the complete absence of any attached documents. Essential details such as full terms and conditions, detailed service specifications, application forms, and crucially, evaluation criteria, are entirely missing, making it impossible for potential bidders to fully understand the scope and requirements.
•Complete absence of tender documents
•Missing detailed service specifications
Fairness80/100
The absence of clear evaluation criteria, mandatory exclusion grounds, and specific financial requirements creates a high risk of unfair treatment and lack of equal opportunities for potential bidders. The 'Pseudo DPS' approach, without transparent procedural rules, could lead to arbitrary decisions and favouritism.
•Lack of clear evaluation criteria
•Potential for arbitrary decision-making due to lack of defined rules
Practicality40/100
While a DPS-like system under LTR can offer practical flexibility for long-term service provision, the current tender information is impractical for bidders. Without any documents, it is impossible for suppliers to prepare a meaningful application or understand the operational framework.
•Impractical for bidders to prepare applications without tender documents
Data Consistency100/100
There is a clear inconsistency between the stated 'Procedure: Restricted procedure' and the description explicitly stating that 'None of the formal procedural rules have any direct application including the requirements of Regulation 34.'
•Inconsistency between stated procedure type and description of applicable rules
Sustainability25/100
The tender mentions 'Social Criteria' as a characteristic, which is positive. However, without any tender documents, it is impossible to assess how these criteria are integrated, measured, or weighted in the procurement process. The automated check also flags 'Not green procurement' and 'No innovation focus.'
•Lack of detail on how 'Social Criteria' will be implemented and evaluated
•No explicit focus on green procurement or innovation