Legal Compliance100/100
The absence of explicitly stated mandatory exclusion grounds and detailed financial requirements in the provided summary raises concerns regarding full transparency and adherence to procurement principles, even if these are typically found in full documents.
•No explicit mandatory exclusion grounds mentioned
•No specific financial requirements mentioned
Clarity40/100
The tender's description of the DPS purpose and technical capabilities is generally clear. However, the section labeled 'ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS' is highly misleading, as it describes the *users* of the DPS rather than the *suppliers* eligible to apply, creating significant ambiguity for potential bidders.
•Misleading 'ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS' section (describes users, not suppliers)
•Vague definition of 'additional network services' without further detail
Completeness83/100
The tender information is critically incomplete due to the complete absence of any attached documents. Key details such as full supplier eligibility criteria, financial requirements, and evaluation criteria for DPS appointment are missing, making it impossible for potential bidders to fully understand the requirements.
•No tender documents attached
•Missing full supplier eligibility criteria
Fairness80/100
The lack of comprehensive and clearly defined supplier eligibility, financial, and evaluation criteria, coupled with the absence of tender documents, creates a significant risk to fairness and equal treatment among potential bidders. Without these details, the process for DPS appointment appears opaque.
•Lack of clear supplier eligibility criteria
•Absence of detailed evaluation criteria for DPS appointment
Practicality40/100
The DPS model is practical for ongoing procurement of dynamic services like network access. However, the current lack of detailed documentation makes the initial application process impractical and challenging for suppliers to prepare a compliant submission.
•Impractical for suppliers to prepare compliant application without full documentation
Data Consistency100/100
There is a significant inconsistency where the 'ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS' section describes the entities *using* the DPS rather than the criteria for *suppliers* to be appointed to the DPS, contradicting the overall intent of a tender for suppliers.
•'ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS' section describes DPS users, not suppliers
Sustainability25/100
The inclusion of 'Social Criteria' is a positive aspect, indicating consideration for broader societal impact. However, there is no explicit mention of environmental (green procurement) or innovation-focused criteria in the provided summary.
•No explicit mention of environmental (green) procurement criteria
•No explicit innovation focus mentioned