Legal Compliance100/100
The tender explicitly references the Public Contracts Regulations 2015/102, indicating adherence to the relevant legal framework. The use of a DPS is a legally recognized procurement tool. Mandatory exclusion grounds are correctly referenced, even if not detailed.
Clarity40/100
The purpose of this amendment (extension of the DPS validity) is clearly stated. However, the overall clarity for potential bidders is low due to the complete absence of detailed requirements (exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial) within this notice, necessitating reference to a 2017 original notice.
•Core requirements (exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial) are not detailed, requiring reference to an older, external document.
•Evaluation criteria are not explicitly provided in this amendment notice.
Completeness83/100
This amendment notice is highly incomplete as a standalone document for any bidder seeking to understand or apply to the DPS. It explicitly defers all substantive requirements to an original notice from 2017, and no supporting documents are attached.
•No tender documents are attached.
•Missing explicit details for mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical capability, and financial requirements.
Fairness80/100
The DPS model itself promotes fairness by allowing new suppliers to join throughout its validity. The broad scope of eligible public-sector bodies also enhances market access. However, the significant administrative burden of locating and cross-referencing historical documents could create an unintentional barrier for new or less resourced bidders.
•Potential administrative barrier for new bidders due to the extensive reliance on external, older documentation.
Practicality40/100
From the contracting authority's perspective, extending an existing DPS is practical. For potential bidders, however, the practicality is low. The requirement to find and consult a 2017 OJEU notice for all substantive details, coupled with no attached documents, creates a significant administrative hurdle.
•High administrative burden for bidders to gather complete information from external, historical sources.
•Absence of e-submission details (as flagged by automated check) could imply a less practical submission process, though this is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
Data Consistency100/100
The information provided within this amendment notice is consistent, clearly stating its purpose as an extension and consistently referring to the original 2017 notice for details. The timeline for the extension is also clear.
Sustainability25/100
The tender mentions 'Social Criteria' as a characteristic, which is a positive indicator for social sustainability. However, there is no explicit mention of environmental or 'green' procurement criteria within this amendment notice.
•Limited explicit detail on environmental sustainability aspects ('Not green procurement' flagged by automated check).