Legal Compliance100/100
The use of a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) is a legally compliant procurement procedure. However, the lack of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds and detailed legal terms within the provided information raises concerns regarding full compliance and transparency.
•No explicit mandatory exclusion grounds stated.
•Absence of comprehensive tender documents detailing legal terms and conditions.
Clarity40/100
The tender clearly communicates its objective to engage social enterprises and defines their eligibility. However, the scope of 'Goods and/or Services' is very broad, and the absence of specific evaluation criteria reduces clarity for potential bidders.
•Vague definition of 'Goods and/or Services' without further breakdown.
•Lack of specific evaluation criteria for applications.
Completeness83/100
The tender is highly incomplete due to the complete absence of any attached tender documents. Essential information such as detailed specifications, financial requirements, and evaluation methodology is missing.
•No tender documents provided.
•Missing detailed technical specifications for goods/services.
Fairness80/100
The tender's focus on social enterprises is a deliberate choice aligned with its social value objectives, promoting a specific market segment. However, the lack of clear evaluation criteria and detailed requirements could lead to subjective assessment, potentially impacting fairness among eligible social enterprises.
•Potential for subjective evaluation due to missing specific criteria.
•Broad scope of 'Goods and/or Services' without further detail may disadvantage some specialized social enterprises.
Practicality40/100
The DPS model is practical for continuous onboarding of social enterprises. However, the current lack of detailed information places a significant burden on potential bidders to proactively seek out essential tender documentation and requirements, which could deter participation.
•Bidders are required to actively seek out fundamental tender information, adding an unnecessary barrier.
•Lack of initial detailed requirements makes it challenging for organizations to prepare a comprehensive application.
Data Consistency100/100
The provided information is largely consistent, clearly outlining the purpose and eligibility for the SEDPS. The primary inconsistency lies between the broad 'Goods and/or Services' description and the specific 'Signage' CPV code.
•The CPV code 'Signage' appears too specific for a Dynamic Purchasing System intended for a wide range of 'Goods and/or Services' across various government departments.
Sustainability25/100
The tender is fundamentally driven by social sustainability, aiming to leverage social enterprises for public procurement. This explicit commitment to social value is a significant strength.
•No explicit mention of environmental sustainability criteria, which could be integrated given the nature of social enterprises.