Legal Compliance100/100
The tender explicitly states it will follow a "restricted procedure" for establishing a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS). This is a fundamental procedural contradiction, as a DPS is typically established under an open procedure allowing continuous admission, not a restricted one. This raises significant concerns regarding legal compliance with the Public Contract Regulations 2015 concerning the establishment of a DPS. Mandatory exclusion grounds are appropriately referenced.
•Procedural contradiction: DPS establishment stated to follow a restricted procedure.
•Absence of detailed evaluation (award) criteria for admission to the DPS or subsequent mini-competitions.
Clarity40/100
Clarity is severely compromised by the procedural contradiction and, more critically, by the complete absence of any tender documents. The extracted requirements are high-level and generic, offering insufficient detail for potential bidders to understand the specific expectations, service delivery models, or evaluation methodology.
•Contradiction between DPS and restricted procedure creates confusion.
•Lack of detailed tender documents (specifications, terms, evaluation criteria) makes requirements unclear.
Completeness83/100
The tender is critically incomplete due to the explicit statement "DOCUMENTS (0 total)" and "No document content available." Without the full tender documentation, including detailed service specifications, contractual terms, evaluation criteria, and application forms, bidders cannot prepare a comprehensive or compliant submission.
•Complete absence of tender documents.
•Missing detailed service specifications and performance indicators.
Fairness80/100
The absence of detailed tender documents and clear evaluation criteria significantly undermines the fairness of the procurement process. Without transparent information, bidders cannot compete on an equal footing, potentially disadvantaging new or smaller providers who lack prior insight into the contracting authority's specific expectations.
•Lack of detailed documentation and evaluation criteria compromises fair competition.
•Potential for subjective interpretation of generic requirements due to missing details.
Practicality40/100
From a bidder's perspective, the tender is highly impractical. It is impossible to prepare a meaningful application without any accompanying documents, detailed specifications, or clear instructions beyond the high-level extracted requirements. The procedural contradiction also creates practical difficulties for the contracting authority in managing the process.
•Impractical for bidders to prepare an application without tender documents.
•Procedural contradiction creates practical implementation challenges.
Data Consistency100/100
There is a significant inconsistency regarding the procurement procedure (DPS vs. restricted procedure). Furthermore, the description mentions an "initial grant for these services is expected to be spent by the 31st March 2022," which is a historical date, creating an inconsistency with the current date (2026-01-14) and the 2026 submission deadline. This suggests outdated information within the tender notice.
•Fundamental inconsistency between the described DPS and the stated restricted procedure.
•Outdated information regarding the initial grant expenditure (2022 date in a 2026 tender).
Sustainability0/100
The tender does not include any explicit requirements or considerations related to environmental sustainability, social criteria, or innovation. This represents a missed opportunity, especially for a public health service that could benefit from broader societal and environmental considerations.
•Absence of explicit green procurement criteria.
•Lack of social criteria.