Legal Compliance100/100
The tender uses a Restricted procedure for a DPS, which is unusual as DPS typically allows continuous admission. The absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds is a legal compliance concern. Full legal compliance cannot be assessed without complete tender documents.
•No explicit mandatory exclusion grounds stated.
•Full legal compliance cannot be assessed due to missing tender documents.
Clarity40/100
The description of service aims and technical capabilities is clear and well-defined, focusing on outcome-based, person-centred care. However, the overall clarity for bidders is severely compromised by the lack of full tender documents, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria.
•Lack of comprehensive tender documents creates ambiguity for bidders.
•Absence of specific financial requirements and evaluation criteria reduces clarity.
Completeness75/100
The tender information provided is incomplete. Crucial elements such as full tender documents, specific financial requirements, and detailed evaluation criteria are missing. The contract duration is also ambiguously presented in relation to the submission deadline.
•No full tender documents attached or available.
•Missing specific financial requirements.
Fairness80/100
While the technical requirements appear generic and not tailored, the absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, financial requirements, and especially evaluation criteria makes it impossible for bidders to understand the basis of selection, potentially compromising fairness and equal treatment.
•Lack of evaluation criteria prevents fair assessment of bids.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds and financial requirements impacts transparency and fairness.
Practicality20/100
The DPS model is practical for ongoing homecare services. However, the critical inconsistency between the DPS term end date and the submission deadline makes the tender impractical and confusing for potential suppliers. The lack of e-submission also indicates an outdated process.
•Critical inconsistency between DPS term end date and submission deadline makes the tender impractical.
•No e-submission system indicated, which is less efficient for modern procurement.
Data Consistency100/100
There is a critical data inconsistency: the DPS Agreement is stated to be for an initial term until 31 December 2026, which is the exact same date as the overall submission deadline. This makes the tender illogical, as new suppliers would be applying to join a system on the day it is set to expire.
•Critical inconsistency: DPS term ends on the same date as the overall submission deadline (2026-12-31).
Sustainability25/100
The inclusion of 'Social Criteria' is a positive aspect, indicating consideration for social sustainability. However, the automated check flags 'Not green procurement', suggesting a lack of explicit environmental sustainability requirements.
•Lack of explicit green procurement requirements.