Legal Compliance100/100
The provided extract lacks specific details on mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements, which are fundamental legal aspects of public procurement. While a DPS is a legally sound procedure, the absence of these specifics in the summary raises concerns about the completeness of the initial information.
•Missing explicit mandatory exclusion grounds
•Missing explicit financial requirements
Clarity40/100
The overall description of the DPS and its objective is clear. However, the extracted eligibility, technical capability, and financial requirements are extremely vague and generic, offering little specific guidance to potential suppliers.
•Vague and generic eligibility requirements
•Vague and generic technical capability requirements
Completeness83/100
The tender information is significantly incomplete, as no actual tender documents are provided for review. Crucial details such as specific eligibility, technical, and financial criteria, as well as evaluation methodology, are entirely absent from the extracted content.
•No tender documents attached
•Missing detailed eligibility requirements
Fairness80/100
The extreme vagueness of the requirements and the complete absence of evaluation criteria create a high risk of subjective assessment, potentially undermining fairness and equal treatment among bidders. Without clear criteria, it is difficult to ensure an objective selection process.
•Vague requirements leading to potential subjectivity
•Absence of evaluation criteria
Practicality40/100
The use of a DPS and an e-tendering system is practical for managing this type of long-term contract. However, the severe lack of detailed requirements in the provided information makes it impractical for suppliers to adequately prepare and submit competitive offers without further, comprehensive documentation.
•Lack of detailed requirements hinders practical preparation for suppliers
Data Consistency100/100
The core information provided is largely consistent. A minor inconsistency is noted where the automated check flags 'No e-submission,' while the description clearly states the use of the Proactis e-tendering system.
•Automated check 'No e-submission' contradicts the description of using Proactis
Sustainability0/100
The provided information and extracted requirements contain no mention of sustainability, environmental, social, or innovation criteria. For a long-term waste management contract, these aspects are increasingly vital and expected in modern public procurement.
•No sustainability criteria
•No social criteria