Wilmslow High School Cleaning Tender 2026

This tender for school cleaning services provides a clear overview of the scope and process but is significantly hampered by critical data inconsistencies, a lack of detailed ITT documents, and the absence of e-submission capabilities.

The tender generally outlines a compliant multi-stage process (Restricted, Competitive flexible procedure) and uses correct CPV codes. However, the 'Liable Person' and procedure codes are missing. A significant legal and practical concern is the stated 'Submission Deadline' being identical to the 'Contract Start' date, which is illogical for contract commencement. The lack of explicitly detailed evaluation criteria in the main notice, though mentioned to be in the PSQ, also presents a transparency issue.

The overall description of the services and the multi-stage procurement process is reasonably clear. The AI-extracted requirements are well-defined based on the provided text. However, there are notable inconsistencies in the contract duration (36 months vs. 5 years) and conflicting deadlines (main submission vs. second-stage tender response), which can cause confusion. The absence of detailed evaluation criteria in the main notice also reduces clarity for potential bidders.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, CPV, and NUTS codes are provided. However, the 'Liable Person' and specific procedure codes are missing. Crucially, while the description refers to 'ITT documents' for further details, these comprehensive documents are not explicitly listed or summarized within the provided tender information, indicating a significant gap in completeness.

The tender's fairness is significantly impacted by the absence of e-submission, which creates barriers to equal access for all potential bidders. While the value is disclosed, the evaluation criteria are not transparently detailed upfront, only mentioned to be in the PSQ. The requirement for 'good local infrastructure' and 'local labour resource/relief cover' could be perceived as potentially restrictive, favoring locally established companies and limiting broader competition.

The lack of electronic submission is a major practical deficiency, increasing administrative burden and potentially deterring bidders. While the contract start date (from the description) and financing information are available, the inconsistencies in contract duration create practical confusion for planning and proposal development.

This category presents the most significant concerns. There are multiple critical inconsistencies, including the contract duration (36 months vs. 5 years), the illogical pairing of the submission deadline with the contract start date, and the 'Divided into Parts' characteristic contradicting the description of a single contract. Missing codes for procedure type also contribute to poor data consistency.

The tender makes no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects (beyond operational local labour needs), or innovation. It is not EU funded, meaning there are no inherent higher sustainability standards from that source. This indicates a complete lack of focus on sustainability criteria.