Legal Compliance100/100
The tender explicitly references the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and mandatory exclusion grounds, indicating an intention for legal compliance. However, the lack of full documentation makes a complete assessment of compliance difficult.
Clarity40/100
The description of services, the purpose of the DPS, and the lot structure are clear. However, the specific criteria for 'high quality' and 'cost-effective' services, and the method for demonstrating these, are not detailed, leading to ambiguity.
•Vague criteria for 'high quality' and 'cost-effective' services.
Completeness83/100
The tender provides a good overview of the service scope and structure. However, critical information such as full tender documents, detailed financial requirements, and comprehensive evaluation criteria are missing from the provided extract, making it incomplete for bidders.
•No full tender documents available.
•Missing detailed financial requirements for bidders.
Fairness80/100
The DPS structure with multiple lots allows for broader participation. However, the absence of detailed evaluation criteria and full tender documents creates a significant risk of subjective assessment and potential for unfair treatment, as bidders lack clear guidance on how to succeed.
•Risk of subjective evaluation due to missing detailed criteria.
•Lack of full documentation impedes fair preparation and competition.
Practicality40/100
The DPS model is generally practical for ongoing procurement of diverse transport services, and the division into lots based on vehicle size is practical for matching supplier capabilities. However, the timeline inconsistency could cause confusion.
•The timeline inconsistency (DPS started 2021, submission deadline 2026) could cause confusion for potential applicants regarding the operational phase of the DPS.
Data Consistency100/100
A significant inconsistency exists regarding the DPS timeline: it commenced on 1st April 2021 and runs for 5 years until 31st March 2026, yet the submission deadline for this tender is also 31st March 2026. This implies applications are accepted until the very end of the initial DPS term, which is highly unusual. Additionally, the tender is classified as 'Restricted procedure' but explicitly describes itself as a 'Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS)', which operates under different regulatory provisions.
•Inconsistent timeline for DPS commencement/duration versus submission deadline.
•Inconsistency between 'Restricted procedure' classification and 'Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS)' description.
Sustainability0/100
The provided information does not indicate any specific green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. This represents a missed opportunity to leverage public procurement for broader sustainability goals and modern best practices.
•Absence of green procurement criteria.
•Absence of social criteria.