Shopping Centre Cleaning and Security Services

This tender presents significant concerns regarding fairness, legal compliance, and data consistency due to highly restrictive eligibility criteria, missing critical legal and evaluation details, and contradictory information within the documentation. While basic information is present and e-submission is supported, the overall quality is compromised by fundamental omissions and inconsistencies.

The tender lacks specified mandatory exclusion grounds, which is a fundamental legal requirement. The 'one Service Provider only, without any use of sub-contractors or sub-contracting' clause is highly restrictive and potentially anti-competitive. Furthermore, Document 1 is an incorrect contract award notice for a different tender, indicating poor document management and a legal flaw. The CPV code is also not fully representative of the combined services.

A critical issue is the complete absence of specified evaluation criteria, making the assessment process opaque. There is also a contradiction between the 'Divided into Parts' characteristic and the 'one Service Provider only, without any use of sub-contractors or sub-contracting' requirement, creating ambiguity. While the service description is clear, the overall clarity is severely hampered by these omissions and inconsistencies.

While basic information like title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are present, the tender is incomplete in critical areas. Mandatory exclusion grounds, specific financial requirements, and all evaluation criteria are missing. The inclusion of an incorrect document (Document 1) also detracts from the completeness of relevant information.

The absence of evaluation criteria is a major transparency and fairness concern. The requirement for 'one Service Provider only, without any use of sub-contractors or sub-contracting' for a combined service of this scale is highly restrictive, potentially tailoring the tender to a limited number of large, integrated providers and significantly reducing competition. The incorrect document also impacts fairness by providing misleading information.

Electronic submission via Delta eSourcing is supported, and key dates (submission, contract start, duration) are clearly specified. However, the highly restrictive 'no sub-contracting' clause creates a significant practical barrier for many potential bidders, limiting their ability to form consortia or specialize. The presence of an incorrect document also poses practical challenges for bidders seeking accurate information.

There are significant inconsistencies within the tender information. The 'Characteristics: Divided into Parts' directly contradicts the 'one Service Provider only, without any use of sub-contractors or sub-contracting' requirement. The inclusion of Document 1, which is a contract award notice for a completely different tender, is a critical data error. Minor inconsistencies include the single CPV for combined services and the empty 'Liable Person' and 'Procedure Code' fields.

The tender does not indicate any focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also noted as not being EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. There is a complete absence of sustainability considerations.