Premises cleaning services for the needs of SIA “ĶĪPSALAS PELDBASEINS”

This tender for cleaning services demonstrates good basic information and an open procedure, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and the critical absence of clearly specified evaluation criteria, severely impacting fairness and transparency.

The tender defines the procedure type, assigns appropriate CPV codes, and indicates no disputes. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern regarding legal transparency and compliance with disclosure requirements.

The service description is clear, and performance conditions refer to technical specifications. However, the critical issue of 'Missing evaluation criteria' significantly reduces clarity, as bidders cannot fully understand how their proposals will be assessed.

Basic information, financial details, and duration are well-specified. However, the 'Restricted document access' means essential documents are not fully available to all bidders, and the 'Missing evaluation criteria' represents a crucial gap in the tender documentation.

The tender's fairness is severely compromised by 'Restricted document access', which prevents equal opportunity for all potential bidders. Furthermore, the 'Missing evaluation criteria' makes the evaluation process opaque and potentially subjective, undermining transparency and objectivity.

Electronic submission is supported, which is practical. The duration is specified, but the contract start date is not. The 'Restricted document access' also poses a practical barrier for bidders to prepare comprehensive proposals.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes. A minor inconsistency exists between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and an automated flag of 'No e-submission', but the explicit characteristic is prioritized.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, suggesting a lack of emphasis on broader sustainability goals.