Legal Compliance100/100
Legal compliance is severely hampered by the absence of full tender documents and specific mandatory exclusion grounds. The classification as 'Restricted procedure' for a DPS, which is an open procedure, is also a significant inconsistency that requires clarification.
•Absence of full tender documents and content.
•No specific mandatory exclusion grounds detailed.
Clarity40/100
The overall purpose of the DPS is clear, but the lack of detailed requirements for eligibility, technical capability, and financial standing significantly reduces the clarity for potential suppliers on what is expected for qualification. The conflicting procedural classification adds to the confusion.
•Lack of detailed eligibility, technical, and financial requirements.
•Conflicting procedural classification ('Restricted' for a DPS).
Completeness75/100
The tender information is critically incomplete. Key elements such as full tender documents, detailed financial and technical requirements, mandatory exclusion grounds, and evaluation criteria are entirely missing from the provided summary.
•No documents attached or content available.
•Missing specific mandatory exclusion grounds.
Fairness60/100
While the DPS model generally promotes fairness by allowing continuous entry, the absence of clear, detailed requirements and evaluation criteria makes it impossible to assess the fairness of the qualification process. This lack of transparency could lead to subjective assessments.
•Lack of clear and detailed qualification and evaluation criteria, potentially leading to subjective assessments.
Practicality20/100
The DPS model is practical for managing a long-term investment plan with varied projects. However, the current lack of detailed information makes it impractical for suppliers to prepare a meaningful application without the full tender documents.
•Impractical for suppliers to apply effectively due to missing detailed requirements and full documents.
Data Consistency100/100
A significant inconsistency exists between the stated 'Restricted procedure' and the description of a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS), which is an open procedure. The automated check indicating 'No e-submission' contradicts the description of using 'In-tend eSourcing systems'.
•Inconsistency between 'Restricted procedure' and DPS classification.
•Contradiction regarding e-submission (automated check vs. description).
Sustainability0/100
The tender summary does not include any green procurement or social criteria, representing a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability objectives into a multi-million-pound, long-term investment plan.
•Absence of green procurement criteria.
•Absence of social criteria.