Legal Compliance100/100
The absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds is a significant legal compliance issue. Furthermore, the complete lack of full tender documents (Selection Questionnaire, specification, contract terms) makes it impossible to verify compliance with all relevant procurement regulations.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds.
•Lack of full tender documents (Selection Questionnaire, Specification, Contract Terms) prevents verification of legal compliance.
Clarity40/100
The description of the service scope, lots, and geographical areas is generally clear. However, frequent references to external documents like the 'Selection Questionnaire' and 'specification paragraph 2.1 - Lot 3' without providing these documents introduce significant ambiguity for potential bidders.
•Vague references to external documents (Selection Questionnaire, Specification) that are not provided.
•Unclear criteria for the Council's discretion to close the Select Provider List, potentially contradicting its 'open' nature.
Completeness83/100
The provided information is an incomplete overview. Crucial documents such as the Selection Questionnaire, detailed specification, and contract terms are entirely missing. This makes it impossible for a bidder to prepare a compliant and informed submission. Evaluation criteria are also absent.
•Absence of all essential tender documents (Selection Questionnaire, Specification, Contract Terms).
•Missing evaluation criteria.
Fairness60/100
The multi-lot structure and the 'open agreement' nature (in principle) promote fairness and wider participation. However, the Council's broad discretion to close the Select Provider List at any time based on subjective assessment ('sufficient providers,' 'sufficient members to meet demand') could introduce unfairness and limit continuous access for new entrants. The lack of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria also impacts fairness.
•Council's broad discretion to close the Select Provider List, potentially limiting continuous access and competition.
•Lack of detailed requirements and evaluation criteria could lead to subjective assessment.
Practicality40/100
The concept of a Select Provider List with multiple lots and sub-lots is practical for managing a critical service across a geographical area. However, the complete absence of tender documents makes it practically impossible for potential bidders to prepare a submission.
•Bidders cannot practically prepare a submission without access to the Selection Questionnaire, specification, and contract terms.
Data Consistency100/100
The provided text is internally consistent regarding the description of the service and the structure of the Select Provider List. However, the statement that the 'Select Provider List is an open agreement where, at any time, any Provider... can bid' is somewhat contradicted by the subsequent clauses granting the Council discretion to close it.
•Potential inconsistency between the 'open agreement' nature and the Council's discretion to close the list.
Sustainability0/100
No information regarding green procurement, social criteria, or innovation focus is provided within the tender description.
•Absence of green procurement, social, or innovation criteria.