St Michael's Church of England High School ~ Schoonmaak Aanbesteding

This tender for cleaning services at St Michael's Church of England High School is generally well-structured, with clear requirements and a defined process. However, it lacks specific evaluation criteria and detailed documentation content, impacting completeness and potentially fairness.

The tender appears to follow standard open procedure. The CPV code is appropriate. While no specific disputes are mentioned, the absence of explicit evaluation criteria could lead to subjective interpretations. Deadlines are provided, but the submission deadline might be considered short given the complexity of preparing a bid. Regulatory compliance is assumed but not explicitly detailed.

The description of services and the school's ethos is clear. Requirements for experience, standards, and support are well-articulated. The use of the Delta eSourcing portal for information and response is clearly indicated. However, the discrepancy between the EUR and GBP contract values needs clarification.

Basic information such as title, organization, estimated value, duration, and start date are present. However, the crucial 'PSQ Document' is not directly accessible or summarized, and the tender documents section indicates 'Documents with content/summaries: 0', which significantly hinders a complete understanding of the requirements and evaluation. The lack of explicit mandatory exclusion grounds is noted.

The tender is an open procedure, promoting broad participation. The value is disclosed, and the use of an e-procurement portal is standard. Requirements for experience in the education sector are objective. However, the lack of published evaluation criteria could lead to perceived unfairness in the selection process. There are no obvious requirements tailored to specific companies.

The tender mandates e-submission via a specific portal, which is practical. The contract start date and duration are specified. Financing information is not explicitly detailed, and the absence of accessible tender documents makes practical assessment difficult. The deadline is provided, but its shortness impacts practicality.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, value, and dates are populated. The contract duration and start date are logical. The CPV code is appropriate. The discrepancy between the EUR and GBP values is the primary inconsistency. No suspension or disputes are indicated.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. The tender is not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.