Legal Compliance100/100
The use of a Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) is a legally valid procurement tool. However, classifying the procedure as 'Restricted' while describing an open qualification process for the DPS (where all who meet criteria are appointed) presents a potential inconsistency in procedural classification. Mandatory exclusion grounds are deferred to the application pack, which is permissible but reduces initial transparency.
•Inconsistency between 'Restricted procedure' classification and the described open qualification process for the DPS.
Clarity40/100
The overall mission, purpose of ESC, and the general concept of the DPS (join anytime, no supplier limit, lot structure) are clearly articulated. However, the specific and crucial details regarding mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria are entirely absent from this announcement, requiring potential bidders to request an external application pack.
•Lack of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility criteria, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria in the initial announcement.
Completeness75/100
The tender information is significantly incomplete. Key elements such as detailed selection criteria (exclusion, eligibility, financial), evaluation criteria, and actual tender documents are missing. The estimated value of 1.00 EUR is highly unrealistic and misleading for a consultancy DPS of this scope.
•Missing detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility criteria, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria.
•No tender documents attached; bidders must email to obtain the application pack.
Fairness60/100
The DPS model itself, allowing continuous application and appointment of all qualified suppliers, inherently promotes fairness and broad market access. However, the lack of upfront detail on selection criteria could create an initial barrier or uncertainty for potential bidders, requiring an extra step to assess suitability.
•Lack of upfront detail on selection criteria may create initial uncertainty for potential bidders.
Practicality20/100
The DPS structure is practical for the procuring entity, offering flexibility and continuous access to a pool of suppliers for ongoing consultancy needs. However, requiring bidders to email for an application pack is a less efficient and modern approach compared to direct download from a procurement portal. The unrealistic estimated value hinders practical financial planning for potential suppliers.
•Requirement to email for the application pack is less efficient than direct download.
•Unrealistic estimated value hinders practical financial planning for bidders.
Data Consistency100/100
There is a notable inconsistency between the stated 'Restricted procedure' and the description of the DPS qualification process, which aligns more with an open procedure. The estimated value of 1.00 EUR is inconsistent with the nature and scope of a consultancy DPS.
•Inconsistency between 'Restricted procedure' classification and the DPS description.
•Estimated value of 1.00 EUR is inconsistent with the scope of services.
Sustainability25/100
The tender's description clearly highlights an 'Innovation Focus' and a mission to support decarbonisation and clean growth, indicating a strong environmental sustainability objective for the *services being procured*. However, the tender documentation itself does not explicitly detail any green procurement or social criteria for the suppliers or the procurement process.
•Absence of explicit green procurement or social criteria for suppliers or the procurement process.