Legal Compliance100/100
The tender outlines a Restricted procedure for a DPS, which is a valid procurement tool. However, the absence of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements in the provided summary raises questions about full compliance disclosure at this stage.
•Lack of specific mandatory exclusion grounds in the provided summary.
•Absence of detailed financial requirements (e.g., minimum turnover, insurance levels) in the provided summary.
Clarity40/100
The overall structure of the DPS and its lots is clear from the description. However, the lack of detailed requirements for eligibility, technical capability, and financial standing in the provided summary creates significant ambiguity for potential bidders.
•Vague technical capability requirements ("Be capable of providing...") without specifying standards, fleet size, experience, or certifications.
•Absence of specific financial requirements.
Completeness75/100
The provided tender information is highly incomplete, serving more as an announcement than a comprehensive tender document. Critical sections like full requirements, evaluation criteria, and actual tender documents are missing.
•"DOCUMENTS (0 total)" and "No document content available" is the primary and most severe completeness issue.
•Missing detailed mandatory exclusion grounds.
Fairness60/100
The DPS structure itself is generally fair as it allows new entrants throughout its term. However, the lack of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria in the provided summary makes it impossible to assess if the full tender documentation contains fair and proportionate conditions. The reservation to tender outside the DPS could potentially undermine its purpose if used excessively.
•Absence of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria makes it difficult to assess potential for disproportionate or tailored conditions.
•The Council's reservation to tender services outside the DPS could reduce the attractiveness and perceived fairness of participating in the DPS if not managed transparently.
Practicality40/100
The DPS model is practical for ongoing transport needs, allowing flexibility. However, the current summary's lack of detail would make it impractical for bidders to prepare a robust application without accessing the full, currently unavailable, documentation.
•Bidders cannot adequately prepare an application based solely on the provided summary due to missing detailed requirements.
•No information on the e-submission process, which is crucial for practicality.
Data Consistency100/100
The provided data is internally consistent, describing a DPS with two lots and a clear timeline for applications and call-offs.
Sustainability25/100
"Social Criteria" is listed as a characteristic, indicating an intent to include sustainability aspects. However, no details are provided on what these criteria entail or how they will be evaluated.
•Lack of specific details regarding the "Social Criteria" or any other environmental/sustainability requirements.
•Not flagged as "green procurement" by automated checks.