Legal Compliance100/100
The tender information lacks explicit mandatory exclusion grounds, which are a fundamental requirement in public procurement. The 'Restricted procedure' label for a DPS application phase is unusual, as DPS typically allows open access for applications throughout its term.
•Absence of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds.
•Lack of clarity regarding the 'Restricted procedure' in the context of continuous DPS applications.
Clarity40/100
The tender's description clearly outlines the purpose, scope, and the new value categories of the DPS. However, the extracted requirements for eligibility and technical capability are extremely vague, lacking specific criteria or expected evidence.
•Vague and non-specific eligibility and technical capability requirements.
Completeness83/100
The tender information is critically incomplete. There are no attached tender documents, no explicit financial requirements, and no stated evaluation criteria for admitting contractors to the DPS. This makes it impossible for potential bidders to prepare a comprehensive application.
•Absence of any tender documents.
•Missing explicit financial requirements (e.g., turnover, insurance).
Fairness80/100
The absence of detailed, objective, and measurable criteria for eligibility, technical capability, and evaluation raises significant concerns about fairness and transparency. Without clear rules, the admission process could be perceived as arbitrary or open to subjective interpretation.
•Lack of objective and measurable criteria for eligibility and technical capability.
•Absence of evaluation criteria, potentially leading to arbitrary admission decisions.
Practicality40/100
While the DPS model allows continuous applications, the extreme lack of detailed requirements and documents makes it impractical for bidders to understand what is truly expected. For the contracting authority, the absence of clear criteria could complicate objective assessment and management of applications.
•Impractical for bidders to prepare a robust application due to missing details.
•Potential for administrative burden for the contracting authority due to vague assessment criteria.
Data Consistency100/100
The contract duration aligns with the DPS term, and the value categories are clearly stated. The information provided is internally consistent.
Sustainability0/100
There is no mention of green procurement, social criteria, or innovation focus within the provided tender information.
•No explicit integration of sustainability (environmental, social) or innovation criteria.