Legal Compliance100/100
Seriously deficient. The absence of explicitly mentioned mandatory exclusion grounds, specific financial requirements, and detailed tender documents makes it difficult to assess compliance with public procurement regulations. The lack of evaluation criteria is also a significant legal gap.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds.
•Lack of specific financial requirements (e.g., minimum turnover, insurance levels).
Clarity40/100
While the overall structure of the framework (ongoing applications for Lots 1 & 2, mini-competitions for ranked lists) is described, the lack of detailed tender documents, specific technical requirements, and evaluation criteria makes it impossible for potential bidders to understand what is truly required.
•No tender documents available to provide detailed instructions.
•Vague technical capability requirements ('Demonstrate the ability').
Completeness66/100
Highly incomplete. Key information such as estimated value, detailed tender documents, specific financial and technical requirements, and evaluation criteria are missing. This makes it impossible for a bidder to prepare a comprehensive and compliant offer.
•Estimated value not disclosed.
•No tender documents provided.
Fairness60/100
The lack of detailed tender documents, specific requirements, and transparent evaluation criteria creates a significant risk to fairness. Without clear rules, the procurement process can appear arbitrary, potentially disadvantaging bidders who lack prior insight or established relationships. The vagueness of requirements could also allow for tailoring during evaluation.
•Absence of detailed tender documents and evaluation criteria creates an uneven playing field.
•Vague requirements could lead to subjective evaluation and potential for tailoring.
Practicality20/100
From a bidder's perspective, it is impractical to submit a quality bid without the actual tender documents, detailed requirements, and evaluation criteria. From the contracting authority's perspective, evaluating bids based on such limited information would be challenging and prone to inconsistencies.
•Bidders cannot practically prepare a compliant and competitive offer without tender documents.
•Evaluation on a six-monthly basis without clear criteria is impractical and risks inconsistency.
Data Consistency100/100
The provided data is internally consistent, but its limited scope makes it difficult to assess consistency with external or implied requirements. The description of the framework's structure is consistent with the eligibility and submission requirements.
Sustainability0/100
No information regarding sustainability criteria, environmental considerations, social value, or ethical sourcing is provided. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value objectives.
•Absence of any sustainability or green procurement requirements.