Legal Compliance100/100
The tender explicitly references adherence to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 for mandatory exclusion grounds and the Government prompt payment policy, indicating a commitment to legal frameworks. However, the classification of a DPS as a "Restricted procedure" is a fundamental contradiction to the nature of a DPS under PCR 2015, which should be an open procedure throughout its validity.
•Stating 'Restricted procedure' for a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) is contradictory to public procurement regulations, which define a DPS as an open procedure allowing new suppliers to join at any time.
Clarity40/100
The overall objectives, scope, and desired outcomes (decarbonisation, social value, ethical sourcing) are clearly articulated in the description. However, the specific requirements for demonstrating eligibility and technical capability lack detailed definitions and measurable criteria, which could lead to ambiguity for potential bidders.
•Lack of detailed definitions and measurable criteria for demonstrating 'ethically and sustainably sourced' or 'positive impact on the environment and communities'.
•Absence of specific evaluation criteria for technical and eligibility requirements.
Completeness83/100
The basic information, description, and high-level requirements are provided. However, the tender is critically incomplete due to the absence of any attached documents, such as the full specification, terms and conditions, or detailed evaluation methodology. This prevents a thorough understanding of the procurement process and expectations.
•No tender documents attached or available for review.
•Missing detailed evaluation criteria for all requirements.
Fairness80/100
The tender aims to support a wide range of suppliers, including SMEs, charities, and social enterprises, and includes a prompt payment policy, which promotes fairness in the supply chain. However, the lack of detailed evaluation criteria and the procedural inconsistency regarding the DPS type could introduce subjectivity and potential unfairness in the assessment process.
•Absence of clear and objective evaluation criteria could lead to subjective assessment of bids.
•The procedural inconsistency of a 'Restricted procedure' for a DPS could unfairly limit market access if not clarified.
Practicality40/100
The establishment of a DPS for such a broad and critical area (sustainable construction and services) is a practical approach for public sector buyers to access a pre-vetted pool of ethical and sustainable suppliers. The requirements, while ambitious, are relevant to the stated goals.
•The broad and qualitative nature of some requirements (e.g., 'positive impact') without clear metrics might pose practical challenges for both bidders in demonstrating compliance and the contracting authority in evaluating it consistently.
Data Consistency100/100
Most of the information provided is consistent, with the description aligning well with the title, characteristics, and extracted requirements regarding sustainability and social value.
•The stated 'Restricted procedure' for a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) directly contradicts the fundamental nature of a DPS, which is an open procedure.
Sustainability25/100
Sustainability is a core focus, explicitly integrated into the title, description, and technical requirements, covering decarbonisation, biodiversity, energy efficiency, waste reduction, circular economy principles, and ethical sourcing. This is a strong example of green and social procurement intent.
•While the intent is strong, the lack of detailed documentation means the specific mechanisms and metrics for measuring and enforcing sustainability commitments are not visible.