Daily and Periodic Cleaning Services, Granville Street Birmingham UID 141

This tender for cleaning services provides good basic information and a clear service scope but is significantly hampered by a lack of detailed evaluation criteria, explicit eligibility/exclusion grounds, and the critical absence of e-submission, impacting fairness and practicality.

The tender correctly defines the procedure type and CPV code, and the preparation period is reasonable. However, the explicit statement in the AI summary that 'No specific mandatory exclusion grounds are explicitly detailed' and 'No specific eligibility requirements are explicitly detailed' raises concerns about full compliance with disclosure requirements, even if the full ITT is referenced.

The service description is clear and unambiguous. While award criteria weights (55% price, 45% quality) are provided, the methodology for evaluating the 'quality' component is not detailed, leading to a significant lack of clarity. The absence of explicit eligibility and exclusion grounds also reduces overall clarity.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and location are well-provided. However, the tender is incomplete regarding detailed evaluation criteria for quality and explicitly lacks specific mandatory exclusion and eligibility requirements in the provided summary. The 'Divided into Parts' characteristic is also not elaborated.

The tender discloses the estimated value and the requirements appear generic, not tailored. The 22-day preparation period is reasonable. However, the lack of e-submission is a significant barrier to equal access and modern procurement practices. Furthermore, the absence of detailed quality evaluation criteria compromises transparency and objectivity, potentially hindering fair competition.

The tender clearly specifies the contract start date and duration. However, the absence of electronic submission capabilities is a major practical drawback in the current procurement landscape. A direct document URL is also not provided in the summary, which could impede easy access to the full tender documents.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are minor omissions such as the 'Liable Person' field being empty and N/A codes for procedure type. The 'No evaluation criteria specified' flag contradicts the AI summary's mention of 55% price, 45% quality, indicating a slight inconsistency in the data's presentation or interpretation.

The tender does not include any explicit criteria or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often implies higher sustainability standards.