Legal Compliance100/100
The tender states compliance with Procurement Regulations and aims for an open, transparent, and competitive DPS. However, classifying the procedure as 'Restricted' while describing a DPS is a fundamental inconsistency that needs urgent clarification, as these are distinct procurement procedures with different legal frameworks. The absence of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided extract is also a minor concern, though implied.
•Inconsistency between 'Restricted' procedure type and 'Dynamic Purchasing System' description.
•Lack of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds detailed in the provided extract.
Clarity40/100
The overall objective and the 'Innovation Pathway' model are clearly described, providing good context. However, the specific requirements for eligibility, technical capability, and especially financial standing are vague. The complete absence of evaluation criteria makes the selection process for admission to the DPS entirely unclear.
•Vague eligibility, technical, and financial requirements.
•Absence of evaluation criteria for DPS admission.
Completeness75/100
The provided information is severely incomplete. Crucially, no tender documents are attached or accessible from the provided extract, making a full assessment impossible. Key details like estimated value, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria are entirely missing.
•No tender documents provided or accessible from the extract.
•Estimated value not disclosed.
Fairness60/100
The stated intent to create a DPS aims for an open and competitive process, which is inherently fair in principle. However, the critical lack of detailed requirements, evaluation criteria, and an estimated value could significantly disadvantage new entrants who cannot anticipate the full scope or financial commitment required, potentially favoring existing partners with prior knowledge or established relationships.
•Lack of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria could hinder fair competition for new entrants.
•Undisclosed estimated value creates significant uncertainty for bidders.
Practicality40/100
The concept of a DPS for innovation services is practical for the contracting authority to manage diverse and evolving needs over time. For bidders, however, the severe lack of detailed information, particularly financial requirements and evaluation criteria, makes it highly impractical to prepare a comprehensive, competitive, and well-informed Expression of Interest.
•Impractical for bidders to prepare a robust Expression of Interest due to missing critical information.
Data Consistency100/100
A significant and critical inconsistency exists between the tender being classified as 'Restricted' and the description explicitly stating the creation of a 'Dynamic Purchasing System' (DPS). These are distinct procurement procedures with different rules regarding openness, duration, and legal obligations.
•Direct contradiction between 'Restricted' procedure type and 'Dynamic Purchasing System' description.
Sustainability25/100
The provided information does not include any specific environmental or social sustainability criteria. While the focus is on health innovation, there's no indication of broader sustainability considerations being integrated into the procurement process or partner selection.
•Absence of explicit green procurement or social criteria.