Archer Academyn siivouspalvelut

This tender for cleaning services at The Archer Academy is generally well-structured, with clear objectives and a defined scope. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and detailed information on sustainability, which could be improved.

The tender adheres to general legal compliance by providing a clear procedure, CPV code, and a reasonable submission deadline relative to the contract start date. The absence of explicit dispute information and the presence of a break clause contribute positively. However, the lack of a reveal date for the full tender documents is a minor oversight.

The description of services required is clear, outlining expectations for high standards, staffing, supervision, KPIs, and innovation. The eligibility and technical capability requirements are well-defined. The conditions for contract extension and the potential for insourcing are also clearly stated.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and CPV code. The contract start and end dates are implied by the duration. However, the full tender documents are not accessible without registration, and their content is not summarized, impacting completeness.

The tender is fair, offering full document access free of charge upon registration and disclosing the estimated value. The criteria for extension are based on performance. The procedure is competitive, and there are no obvious requirements tailored to specific companies. The use of an e-procurement platform is a positive aspect.

The tender utilizes an e-procurement platform for registration and document access, which is practical. However, the submission process itself is not explicitly detailed as e-submission, and the contract start date is identical to the submission deadline, which is impractical and likely an error. Financing information is not detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and CPV code are populated. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided are logical, although the contract start date coinciding with the submission deadline is a notable inconsistency.

While the tender mentions 'innovative approaches to sustainability,' it lacks specific green procurement criteria or social aspects. It is not explicitly stated as EU funded. This area could be strengthened with more defined requirements.