Legal Compliance100/100
The use of a "pseudo-DPS" under a "restricted procedure" is highly unusual and potentially non-compliant with standard public procurement regulations for Dynamic Purchasing Systems, which are typically open procedures. The lack of any tender documents makes it impossible to assess compliance with fundamental principles of transparency and equal treatment.
•Use of 'pseudo-DPS' with 'restricted procedure' without clear justification
•Absence of any tender documents
Clarity40/100
The tender is extremely unclear due to the complete absence of detailed documentation. While high-level requirement categories are listed, the specific criteria, definitions (e.g., "approved training provider"), and evaluation methodologies are entirely missing, making it impossible for potential bidders to understand what is required.
•Lack of detailed requirements for eligibility, technical capability, and financial standing
•Undefined term 'approved training provider'
Completeness75/100
This tender is fundamentally incomplete. The complete absence of any tender documents means that critical information such as detailed specifications, terms and conditions, application forms, evaluation criteria, and financial requirements are entirely missing, rendering the tender unbiddable.
•No tender documents provided
•Missing detailed specifications and scope of services
Fairness60/100
The lack of transparency due to missing documents, undisclosed value, and vague requirements (especially "approved training provider" without definition) creates a significant risk of unfair competition. The "restricted procedure" for a "pseudo-DPS" could limit access to a pre-selected group, potentially tailoring the opportunity.
•Risk of limited competition due to vague 'approved training provider' requirement without definition
•Absence of transparent evaluation criteria
Practicality40/100
From a bidder's perspective, this tender is impractical as there are no documents to review or complete. It is impossible for potential suppliers to prepare a meaningful application without any detailed information.
•Impossibility for bidders to prepare an application without tender documents
•Lack of clarity on application process and required submissions
Data Consistency100/100
While the limited data provided is internally consistent, the fundamental inconsistency lies in presenting a tender without any accompanying documents, which is a critical omission. The "Restricted" procedure for a "pseudo-DPS" also presents a conceptual inconsistency with standard DPS practices.
•Conceptual inconsistency between 'pseudo-DPS' and 'restricted procedure'
•Absence of detailed data to assess consistency against
Sustainability0/100
No information regarding environmental, social, or ethical considerations is provided. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability into the procurement process.
•Absence of green procurement criteria
•Absence of social criteria