Cleaning KPI examples for facilities managers

Different records answer different questions
Existing library example	The record can help answer	The record does not establish
Planned deep-clean completion	Whether planned work was recorded as complete by its scheduled date.	Whether the physical result met the agreed cleaning standard.
Cleaning shifts covered	Whether required shifts were recorded as covered.	Whether the cleaning result met the agreed standard.
Complaint learning	Whether the complaint record shows recurring issues or a change in complaint capture.	That a change in complaint count, on its own, proves cleaning improved or deteriorated.
Satisfaction responses	What responding users reported about their experience.	A representative view of all users or an independent measurement of cleanliness.

37 published examples — compare purpose, source and limits
What it measures	Source	Limitation	Suggested review question
Was the building ready before staff arrived? This government contract template requires agreed areas to meet the cleaning standard before the working day.	Crown Commercial Service (now Government Commercial Agency) Contract template RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack	The customer must set the actual target, how checks work and how much each measure counts. This template contains no completed results.	What records show that our agreed cleaning standard was met before staff arrived?
Were urgent cleaning requests dealt with on time? This government template measures how quickly cleaning requests are answered and resolved against the times agreed in the contract.	Crown Commercial Service (now Government Commercial Agency) Contract template RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack	The customer must agree the response times and how many missed targets are acceptable; the template does not supply those values.	Which requests missed our agreed response or completion time, and what do the timestamps show?
Were scheduled deep cleans completed on time? This government template requires planned deep cleans to be completed by their scheduled date.	Crown Commercial Service (now Government Commercial Agency) Contract template RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack	A completion entry shows when work was recorded as done. It does not establish the quality of the clean.	Which deep cleans were due, which were completed, and what checks show the result?
Was window cleaning completed to the agreed standard? This government template schedules internal and external window cleaning twice a year, with work put right at no extra charge if it misses the required standard.	Crown Commercial Service (now Government Commercial Agency) Contract template RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack	The document does not say how many windows are inspected or how quickly unsatisfactory work must be put right.	What was checked after the window clean, and when will any missed areas be put right?
Do more complaints mean cleaning has got worse? An official report rated the complaints measure “Inadequate”: the monthly average rose from six to eight against a target of no more than two. The reporting process had also changed.	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	More complaints were being captured. The increase alone cannot establish that cleaning deteriorated.	Has the way we collect complaints changed, and which recurring issues do the records actually show?
What sits behind the cleaning report’s score? An official report rated daily cleaning delivery “Good” against a target above 90%, using reports from the sites.	UK Health Security Agency / Department of Health and Social Care Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	The publication does not show the total being scored, which areas were checked or how the reports were verified.	Can we see the site records behind the score, including which areas were checked and by whom?
Who answered the cleaning satisfaction survey? An official report uses a 90% satisfaction target, scored only when more than ten people respond. Its published rating was “Good”.	UK Health Security Agency / Department of Health and Social Care Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	The answers describe respondents’ experience. They may not represent everyone and do not independently measure cleanliness.	How many people responded, which areas do they use, and what do their comments tell us?
What happens after cleaning standards are missed? An official report rated cleaning and consumables “Inadequate” against a 90% target and described a six-month improvement plan and escalation to the supplier’s managing director.	HM Revenue & Customs Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	The actual percentage, affected sites and inspection records are not public. The plan does not prove that performance improved.	Which requirements were missed, what action was agreed, and what evidence will show whether it worked?
Have we agreed what visibly clean looks like? An official report gives examples such as walls free of spillages and glass free of fingerprints. It rated the measure “Good” against a target above 90%.	Ministry of Defence / Defence Infrastructure Organisation Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	These are examples from a wider cleaning specification. The complete scoring method is not shown.	Do our inspections use clear descriptions of an acceptable result for each area?
Were the agreed cleaning shifts covered? An official report compares completed shifts with required shifts, using a 98% target. The published rating was “Good”.	Ministry of Justice Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	A covered shift records staffing. It does not show whether the cleaning met the agreed standard.	Which shifts were missed or covered, and what evidence do we have about the cleaning result?
How was the cleaning performance score calculated? An official report converts points for planned and reactive cleaning failures into a percentage, with a 95% target. Its published rating was “Good”.	HM Courts & Tribunals Service / Ministry of Justice Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	The publication does not explain each failure category or show the underlying point totals.	Can you show the failures, points and calculation behind this month’s score?
Does the completion score actually describe cleaning? An official report compares tasks due with tasks completed against a 95% target. It combines cleaning, waste and pest work and reports a “Good” rating.	HM Courts & Tribunals Service / Ministry of Justice Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	The combined score does not reveal cleaning performance on its own.	Can we see the cleaning tasks separately from waste and pest work, including what remains unfinished?
Were floors ready at the agreed opening time? An official report requires floors to be clean, dry and free of specified defects by 08:00 on weekdays. It reports “Good” against a 95% target.	HM Courts & Tribunals Service / Ministry of Justice Published performance report Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026	The publication does not identify who inspected the floors or how areas were selected.	Who checks the floors before opening, which areas are checked, and where are exceptions recorded?
Is there a record of each cleaning visit? This published requirement calls for both a last-clean display and a signed record for every visit.	Perranzabuloe Parish Council Published requirement Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025	A signed visit record shows recorded attendance, not the cleanliness of the area afterwards.	Can we match each scheduled visit to a dated record, and check the result separately?
Are we bringing the different checks together? This published requirement combines random checks, joint inspections, performance meetings and reviews of performance measures.	Perranzabuloe Parish Council Published requirement Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025	The document does not specify how many areas to check or a numerical pass mark.	What do our spot checks, joint inspections and previous review actions tell us together?
How well does the contractor deal with problems? This published requirement scores contractor responsiveness and problem-solving on a scale from 1 to 5.	Perranzabuloe Parish Council Published requirement Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025	It sets no target for how quickly a complaint must be answered or resolved.	Which issues are still open, how long have they been open, and what response have we received?
Do inspections and staff feedback tell the same story? This published requirement combines spot checks, joint inspections and customer comments in a cleaning-quality score from 1 to 5.	Perranzabuloe Parish Council Published requirement Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025	The document does not give a numerical cleanliness threshold or an objective test.	Where do inspections and staff feedback agree or differ, and what should we investigate?
What exactly does an inspection check? This published specification describes visible cleanliness, odour, scale, grime, waste, floor condition and stocked supplies.	Syston Town Council Published requirement Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029	Most checks rely on what someone can see or smell; the specification gives no numerical pass mark.	Are our inspection records checking the actual conditions listed in our specification?
Are less frequent cleaning tasks being missed? This published specification separates daily cleaning from monthly work on selected high surfaces and quarterly cleaning behind fixtures.	Syston Town Council Published requirement Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029	A schedule describes when work should happen. Recorded completion does not establish the quality of the result.	Which monthly or quarterly tasks were due, and what shows they were completed satisfactorily?
Does the invoice match the work recorded? This published requirement says each invoice must include the dates and schedule of completed work.	Syston Town Council Published requirement Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029	Dated entries show what work is claimed. They do not establish that it met the cleaning standard.	Can we match the invoice to dated work records and account for anything missed?
Is this a cleaning issue or a maintenance problem? This published specification separates cleaning issues from maintenance defects, vandalism, misuse and immediate hazards.	Syston Town Council Published requirement Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029	Identifying and reporting the cause does not show that the problem has been resolved.	Have we identified the cause, assigned the right owner and recorded what happened next?
Was the carpet stain actually dealt with? This published requirement asks for both a carpet spill or stain and the result of its treatment to be reported.	UK Debt Management Office Published requirement Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off	This requirement concerns carpet marks and spillages; it is not a general test of the whole building.	What treatment was recorded, and did the follow-up record show whether the stain remained?
What records should we bring to the review? This published requirement brings together inspections, work delivered, invoices, complaints, improvements, service changes and incidents.	UK Debt Management Office Published requirement Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off	It lists the information to discuss but gives no fixed meeting interval or pass mark.	Do we have the records behind each issue, the contractor’s response and the previous agreed actions?
Can we verify the contractor’s performance report? This published requirement asks the supplier for monitoring tools and information detailed enough for the customer to check the agreed service levels.	UK Debt Management Office Published requirement Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off	Not every target or payment deduction is public, so the published clauses do not give a complete scoring system.	Can we trace the reported result back to records that show whether our agreed service level was met?
Were inspection findings put right on time? This published requirement sets a 95% target for monthly cleaning audits and correction of failures within agreed timescales.	Scottish Government Published requirement Facilities management procurement CASE/437570	The payment-deduction table leaves one value blank. No deduction should be assumed for that missing entry.	Which findings remain open, what deadlines were agreed, and what records show completed corrections?
Do the monthly reports lead to clear actions? This published requirement combines contractor checks, audits, inspections and maintenance-system trends, with actions included in the monthly report.	Scottish Government Published requirement Facilities management procurement CASE/437570	These clauses do not provide a separate formula for payment deductions.	What changed in the records this month, and what specific actions have been recorded in response?
What is being done to stop complaints recurring? This published requirement says complaints about contractor staff must be investigated, resolved and followed by action to reduce recurrence.	Scottish Government Published requirement Facilities management procurement CASE/437570	The clause does not promise an automatic reduction in payment following a complaint.	What caused the complaint, what was done, and how will we check whether the problem returns?
Can we see what work was recorded in each area? This published requirement calls for a daily cleaning activity sheet for every contracted area.	Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD Published requirement Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401	The sheet records attendance and activity. It does not establish the cleaning result.	Are all agreed areas covered in the daily records, and how is the result checked?
What does a missed cleaning standard mean for payment? This published requirement links monthly cleanliness scores of 3, 2 or 1 to graduated payment deductions.	Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD Published requirement Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401	The deductions have conditions and apply to the relevant building under this contract. They are not a general rule for other contracts.	Does our contract link missed standards to payment, and do the records support the conditions for that response?
Were absences covered and attendance recorded? This published requirement sets a 98% attendance target and links shortfalls to deductions, with a possible exception when the issue is corrected the same day.	Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD Published requirement Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401	Attendance measures staffing cover, not cleanliness. Any deduction depends on the terms of this contract.	What attendance shortfalls occurred, how were they covered, and what effect did they have on the service?
Did we receive the monthly report in time? This published requirement asks for every site’s cleaning audit and performance report within ten working days after month end.	Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD Published requirement Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401	Receiving a report on time does not independently establish that its contents are accurate.	Did every site report arrive by our agreed deadline, and can we check the records behind it?
How quickly must a suspected failure be put right? A vehicle-test-centre specification allows inspection or testing of suspected failures and requires correction within three working days, or immediately for a safety risk.	Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD Published requirement Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401	These response times and financial consequences belong to that vehicle-test-centre contract; they are not general office-cleaning rules.	What response time does our own contract require, and what records show when the issue was identified and corrected?
Were all the contracted cleaning hours delivered? This tender requirement asks for 100% of contracted cleaning hours, supported by detailed electronic records.	Trivallis Published requirement TRIV2025-08 Office Cleaning Services	Hours worked do not establish cleaning quality. The award notice does not confirm that these tender terms became the final contract unchanged.	Can we reconcile contracted hours with recorded hours, including any gaps or cover arrangements?
How are the contractor’s own checks reviewed? This tender requirement sets a target above 95% for contractor self-audits and asks for random audit dates and times.	Trivallis Published requirement TRIV2025-08 Office Cleaning Services	These are the contractor’s own checks. The award notice does not confirm the tender terms became the final contract unchanged.	Which areas were checked, when were they checked, and how has our team reviewed the findings?
Were inspection findings followed through? This tender requirement connects customer inspections, recorded defects, complaints and the contractor’s corrective actions.	Trivallis Published requirement TRIV2025-08 Office Cleaning Services	The inspection frequency is not specified. The award notice does not confirm that the tender terms became the final contract unchanged.	Can we follow each finding through the agreed action to a later check of the result?
Are checks reviewed by more than one management level? A published school-estate contract notice describes monthly supervisor audits and quarterly contracts-manager inspections, with a target of at least 92%.	Harris Federation Published requirement PP-10167 cleaning-services UK7 contract-details notice	The public notice does not include a formula for payment reductions when standards are missed.	Who reviews the supervisor’s checks, and how are differences or recurring findings addressed?
What happens to cleaning hours that were missed? A published school-estate contract notice requires missed cleaning hours to be reused or credited in the monthly invoice.	Harris Federation Published requirement PP-10167 cleaning-services UK7 contract-details notice	This accounts for paid and delivered hours. It does not establish the resulting cleanliness.	Which hours were missed, where were they reused, and which should appear as an invoice credit under our agreement?

Was the building ready before staff arrived?

This government contract template requires agreed areas to meet the cleaning standard before the working day.

Records used: Supplier checks, a performance report and supporting customer records. The daily result feeds into a monthly performance measure.
What this doesn’t establish: The customer must set the actual target, how checks work and how much each measure counts. This template contains no completed results.

Our suggested review question

What records show that our agreed cleaning standard was met before staff arrived?

Read the original source

Crown Commercial Service (now Government Commercial Agency)

A contract template: this describes a requirement, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published framework model — buyer values were unset and this is not observed performance.

Read with care: Framework template: operative buyer values are unset.

Full example

Opening-time cleanliness: all areas meet the agreed cleaning standard before the working day begins

Record type: Framework requirement Mechanism: Outcome standard Cadence: Daily outcome; monthly KPI entry Evidence owner: Supplier monitors; buyer verifies Evidence record: Supplier monitoring, performance report, buyer supporting documents Threshold or trigger: Call-off buyer sets the operative target Published consequence: Possible KPI credits, ratcheted deductions, rectification plan and persistent-failure default Why this may help an FM: Decide whether the building is reliably ready at opening Important limitation: Unpopulated framework model; each buyer must set weights and verification detail

RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack

Source pack: S01 Published or source date: 2023-11-22 to 2023-12-14 file metadata Jurisdiction and setting: UK central government Exact locator: KPI_Measures table 4 row 115; Specification 77.1.1 and 78.2-78.5; Schedule 14 parts A-B

Reference: GCA-01

Open source-pack page

Were urgent cleaning requests dealt with on time?

This government template measures how quickly cleaning requests are answered and resolved against the times agreed in the contract.

Records used: Request and closure times in the helpdesk log, with missed targets counted each month.
What this doesn’t establish: The customer must agree the response times and how many missed targets are acceptable; the template does not supply those values.

Our suggested review question

Which requests missed our agreed response or completion time, and what do the timestamps show?

Read the original source

Crown Commercial Service (now Government Commercial Agency)

A contract template: this describes a requirement, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published framework model — buyer values were unset and this is not observed performance.

Read with care: Framework template: operative buyer values are unset.

Full example

Reactive cleaning requests answered and rectified within the call-off service level

Record type: Framework requirement Mechanism: Reactive rectification Cadence: Per event; monthly failure count Evidence owner: Helpdesk and supplier; buyer reviews Evidence record: Helpdesk request and closure timestamps Threshold or trigger: Call-off buyer sets response bands and acceptable failure count Published consequence: Possible KPI credits, ratcheted deductions and rectification plan Why this may help an FM: Check whether reactive issues close within the agreed service level Important limitation: The framework leaves response bands and acceptable failure counts to the buyer

RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack

Source pack: S01 Published or source date: 2023-11-22 to 2023-12-14 file metadata Jurisdiction and setting: UK central government Exact locator: KPI_Measures table 4 row 116; Specification 78.10-78.13

Reference: GCA-02

Open source-pack page

Were scheduled deep cleans completed on time?

This government template requires planned deep cleans to be completed by their scheduled date.

Records used: The annual plan, one month’s advance notice and a completion entry in the maintenance system. Performance is recorded monthly.
What this doesn’t establish: A completion entry shows when work was recorded as done. It does not establish the quality of the clean.

Our suggested review question

Which deep cleans were due, which were completed, and what checks show the result?

Read the original source

Crown Commercial Service (now Government Commercial Agency)

A contract template: this describes a requirement, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published framework model — buyer values were unset and this is not observed performance.

Read with care: Framework template: operative buyer values are unset.

Full example

Planned deep-cleaning work completed by its scheduled date and recorded in CAFM or PPM

Record type: Framework requirement Mechanism: Planned completion Cadence: Annual programme; one-month advance notice; monthly KPI entry Evidence owner: Supplier records in CAFM or PPM; buyer reviews Evidence record: Annual programme, advance notice and CAFM or PPM completion record Threshold or trigger: Every adopted deep-clean activity completed by planned date Published consequence: Conditional KPI credit and rectification route Why this may help an FM: Check whether periodic work is completed to schedule Important limitation: Proves recorded completion timing, not the physical result

RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack

Source pack: S01 Published or source date: 2023-11-22 to 2023-12-14 file metadata Jurisdiction and setting: UK central government Exact locator: KPI_Measures table 4 row 117; Specification 82.2.1-82.2.5

Reference: GCA-03

Open source-pack page

Was window cleaning completed to the agreed standard?

This government template schedules internal and external window cleaning twice a year, with work put right at no extra charge if it misses the required standard.

Records used: The cleaning method, schedule and maintenance-system record for each planned visit.
What this doesn’t establish: The document does not say how many windows are inspected or how quickly unsatisfactory work must be put right.

Our suggested review question

What was checked after the window clean, and when will any missed areas be put right?

Read the original source

Crown Commercial Service (now Government Commercial Agency)

A contract template: this describes a requirement, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published framework model — buyer values were unset and this is not observed performance.

Read with care: Framework template: operative buyer values are unset.

Full example

Internal and external window cleaning scheduled twice yearly, with free rectification if the required standard is missed

Record type: Framework requirement Mechanism: Planned completion Cadence: Biannual Evidence owner: Supplier provides method and record; buyer assesses Evidence record: Method statement, schedule and CAFM or PPM record Threshold or trigger: Required quality standard; numeric pass threshold not published Published consequence: Free rectification Why this may help an FM: Check whether specialist periodic work was scheduled and delivered without paying twice Important limitation: No published inspection sample or rectification time

RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack

Source pack: S01 Published or source date: 2023-11-22 to 2023-12-14 file metadata Jurisdiction and setting: UK central government Exact locator: Specification work package I, 84.2-84.5 and 85.2-85.5

Reference: GCA-04

Do more complaints mean cleaning has got worse?

An official report rated the complaints measure “Inadequate”: the monthly average rose from six to eight against a target of no more than two. The reporting process had also changed.

Records used: Formal complaints, monthly counts and an explanation of the reporting change; the public rating covers a quarter.
What this doesn’t establish: More complaints were being captured. The increase alone cannot establish that cleaning deteriorated.

Our suggested review question

Has the way we collect complaints changed, and which recurring issues do the records actually show?

Read the original source

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment. The complaint-capture approach changed, so counts are not directly comparable.

Full example

Cleaning complaints assessed with explicit context that a changed reporting process increased capture

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Complaint learning Cadence: Daily reports; monthly complaint count; quarterly public rating Evidence owner: Defra and supplier reporting process Evidence record: Formal complaint records and reporting-process commentary Threshold or trigger: No more than two formally recorded complaints per month Published rating: Inadequate Published context: average formally recorded complaints rose to eight from six Published consequence: No contractual consequence stated; a mitigation call and revised reporting process are disclosed management responses Why this may help an FM: Separate a delivery signal from a change in complaint capture Important limitation: The rise from six to eight is not a safe like-for-like deterioration claim

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: England; Defra estate Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 309

Reference: CG-01

Open source-pack page

What sits behind the cleaning report’s score?

An official report rated daily cleaning delivery “Good” against a target above 90%, using reports from the sites.

Records used: Daily site cleaning reports, summarised in a quarterly public rating.
What this doesn’t establish: The publication does not show the total being scored, which areas were checked or how the reports were verified.

Our suggested review question

Can we see the site records behind the score, including which areas were checked and by whom?

Read the original source

UK Health Security Agency / Department of Health and Social Care

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment.

Full example

Daily cleaning reports across all sites measured against the agreed delivery standard

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Reporting assurance Cadence: Daily reports; quarterly public rating Evidence owner: Supplier/site reporting; UKHSA assesses Evidence record: Site cleaning reports Threshold or trigger: Above 90% Published rating: Good Published consequence: No consequence or escalation stated Why this may help an FM: Check consistency of daily assurance across a multisite estate Important limitation: Denominator, sampling and report-accuracy audit are not disclosed

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: UKHSA multisite estate Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 1408

Reference: CG-02

Open source-pack page

Who answered the cleaning satisfaction survey?

An official report uses a 90% satisfaction target, scored only when more than ten people respond. Its published rating was “Good”.

Records used: A monthly staff survey, with a quarterly public rating.
What this doesn’t establish: The answers describe respondents’ experience. They may not represent everyone and do not independently measure cleanliness.

Our suggested review question

How many people responded, which areas do they use, and what do their comments tell us?

Read the original source

UK Health Security Agency / Department of Health and Social Care

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment.

Full example

Cleaning satisfaction is scored only when the survey receives more than ten responses

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Satisfaction evidence Cadence: Monthly survey; quarterly public rating Evidence owner: Buyer staff respond; UKHSA assesses Evidence record: Buyer-staff survey Threshold or trigger: At least 90%, only when more than ten responses are received Published rating: Good Published consequence: No consequence or escalation stated Why this may help an FM: Judge perception while checking whether the sample is scoreable Important limitation: Perception evidence with possible response bias; it does not measure cleanliness independently

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: UKHSA multisite estate Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 1486

Reference: CG-03

Open source-pack page

What happens after cleaning standards are missed?

An official report rated cleaning and consumables “Inadequate” against a 90% target and described a six-month improvement plan and escalation to the supplier’s managing director.

Records used: The agreed service requirements and cleaning methods, with a quarterly public rating.
What this doesn’t establish: The actual percentage, affected sites and inspection records are not public. The plan does not prove that performance improved.

Our suggested review question

Which requirements were missed, what action was agreed, and what evidence will show whether it worked?

Read the original source

HM Revenue & Customs

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment.

Full example

Cleaning and consumables at monitoring points linked to a formal recovery plan and senior supplier escalation

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Escalation and remedy Cadence: Agreed monitoring points; quarterly public rating Evidence owner: Supplier records; HMRC assesses and escalates Evidence record: Deliverables matrix and tendered method statements Threshold or trigger: 90% Published rating: Inadequate Published consequence: No contractual consequence stated; a six-month improvement plan and managing-director escalation are disclosed management responses Why this may help an FM: Decide whether ordinary service failure needs formal recovery and senior ownership Important limitation: Achieved percentage, affected sites and raw inspection evidence are not public

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: HMRC East estate Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 1940

Reference: CG-04

Open source-pack page

Have we agreed what visibly clean looks like?

An official report gives examples such as walls free of spillages and glass free of fingerprints. It rated the measure “Good” against a target above 90%.

Records used: A quarterly public rating; the underlying inspection records and checking frequency are not published.
What this doesn’t establish: These are examples from a wider cleaning specification. The complete scoring method is not shown.

Our suggested review question

Do our inspections use clear descriptions of an acceptable result for each area?

Read the original source

Ministry of Defence / Defence Infrastructure Organisation

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment.

Full example

Specific visible-condition checks: walls free of spillages and glass free of fingerprints

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Outcome standard Cadence: Quarterly public rating; underlying cadence unstated Evidence owner: Contracting authority inspection process; full owner not published Evidence record: Underlying inspection record not published Threshold or trigger: Above 90% Published rating: Good Published consequence: No consequence or escalation stated Why this may help an FM: Check whether scoring uses observable defects rather than activity alone Important limitation: Only examples from a wider contract dictionary are visible; the full scoring method is absent

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: MOD serviced accommodation Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 2659

Reference: CG-05

Open source-pack page

Were the agreed cleaning shifts covered?

An official report compares completed shifts with required shifts, using a 98% target. The published rating was “Good”.

Records used: Required and completed shift records, summarised in a quarterly public rating.
What this doesn’t establish: A covered shift records staffing. It does not show whether the cleaning met the agreed standard.

Our suggested review question

Which shifts were missed or covered, and what evidence do we have about the cleaning result?

Read the original source

Ministry of Justice

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment.

Full example

Cleaning shifts undertaken divided by shifts required

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Labour delivery Cadence: Quarterly public rating; internal aggregation unstated Evidence owner: Supplier shift records; Ministry of Justice assesses Evidence record: Required and completed shift records Threshold or trigger: 98% of required shifts undertaken Published rating: Good Published consequence: No consequence or escalation stated Why this may help an FM: Check contracted labour coverage while keeping it separate from outcome quality Important limitation: Activity measure only; a completed shift does not prove its outcome

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: Ministry of Justice estate Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 4008

Reference: CG-06

Open source-pack page

How was the cleaning performance score calculated?

An official report converts points for planned and reactive cleaning failures into a percentage, with a 95% target. Its published rating was “Good”.

Records used: Records of failure points and a quarterly public rating.
What this doesn’t establish: The publication does not explain each failure category or show the underlying point totals.

Our suggested review question

Can you show the failures, points and calculation behind this month’s score?

Read the original source

HM Courts & Tribunals Service / Ministry of Justice

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment.

Full example

Planned and reactive cleaning failure points converted to a performance percentage

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Performance scoring Cadence: Quarterly public rating Evidence owner: Supplier and HMCTS failure records Evidence record: Planned and reactive failure-point records Threshold or trigger: 95% Published rating: Good Published consequence: Failure points are converted to a percentage; no financial or contractual consequence is stated Why this may help an FM: Check planned and reactive reliability in one measure Important limitation: Failure definitions and raw point totals are absent

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: HMCTS Manchester court Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 4222

Reference: CG-07

Open source-pack page

Does the completion score actually describe cleaning?

An official report compares tasks due with tasks completed against a 95% target. It combines cleaning, waste and pest work and reports a “Good” rating.

Records used: Monthly task lists and completion records, summarised in a quarterly public rating.
What this doesn’t establish: The combined score does not reveal cleaning performance on its own.

Our suggested review question

Can we see the cleaning tasks separately from waste and pest work, including what remains unfinished?

Read the original source

HM Courts & Tribunals Service / Ministry of Justice

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment. This measure combines cleaning with other services and is not a cleaning-only result.

Full example

Cleaning, waste and pest tasks due in the month compared with tasks completed

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Planned completion Cadence: Monthly task records; quarterly public rating Evidence owner: Supplier task records; HMCTS assesses Evidence record: Due and completed task records Threshold or trigger: 95% of due tasks completed Published rating: Good Published consequence: No consequence or escalation stated Why this may help an FM: Identify whether scheduled tasks are accumulating into backlog Important limitation: Cleaning cannot be isolated from the bundled waste and pest measure

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: HMCTS Exeter court Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 4323

Reference: CG-08

Open source-pack page

Were floors ready at the agreed opening time?

An official report requires floors to be clean, dry and free of specified defects by 08:00 on weekdays. It reports “Good” against a 95% target.

Records used: A quarterly public rating of the weekday requirement; the underlying inspection records are not published.
What this doesn’t establish: The publication does not identify who inspected the floors or how areas were selected.

Our suggested review question

Who checks the floors before opening, which areas are checked, and where are exceptions recorded?

Read the original source

HM Courts & Tribunals Service / Ministry of Justice

A published performance report: this is a selected result, not a complete assessment of the contractor.

Source details and full wording

Official reported performance — a selected source-specific result, not a complete supplier assessment.

Read with care: Authority-reported selected KPI snapshot, not a complete contract or supplier assessment.

Full example

Soft and hard floors must be clean, dry and free from specified defects by 08:00 each weekday

Record type: Reported performance Mechanism: Outcome standard Cadence: Weekday outcome; quarterly public rating Evidence owner: HMCTS inspection process; full owner not published Evidence record: Underlying inspection record not published Threshold or trigger: 95% Published rating: Good Published consequence: No consequence or escalation stated Why this may help an FM: Check operational readiness at 08:00 Important limitation: Who inspects and how areas are sampled are not disclosed

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Source pack: S02 Published or source date: Published 2026-08-25; reporting period 2026-01 to 2026-03 Jurisdiction and setting: HMCTS East Anglia courts Exact locator: Key_Performance_Indicators row 4601

Reference: CG-09

Open source-pack page

Is there a record of each cleaning visit?

This published requirement calls for both a last-clean display and a signed record for every visit.

Records used: The date, time and cleaner’s identity for each visit, compiled monthly.
What this doesn’t establish: A signed visit record shows recorded attendance, not the cleanliness of the area afterwards.

Our suggested review question

Can we match each scheduled visit to a dated record, and check the result separately?

Read the original source

Perranzabuloe Parish Council

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Every clean leaves two attributable records: a public last-clean display and a signed visit record

Record type: Tender requirement Mechanism: Attendance attribution Cadence: Per clean; monthly compilation Evidence owner: Individual cleaner records; council can request Evidence record: Date, time, cleaner display and signed cleaning record Threshold or trigger: Every visit recorded; no cleanliness threshold Published consequence: General warning and default remedies may apply Why this may help an FM: Reconcile promised frequency with attributable delivery Important limitation: Proves recorded attendance, not cleanliness

Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025

Source pack: S03 Published or source date: Available 2025-02-04 Jurisdiction and setting: England; parish council public conveniences Exact locator: Schedule 2 clauses 16 and 25, PDF pp18 and 20

Reference: PPC-01

Are we bringing the different checks together?

This published requirement combines random checks, joint inspections, performance meetings and reviews of performance measures.

Records used: Check and inspection records, meeting notes and performance reviews, at different intervals through the contract.
What this doesn’t establish: The document does not specify how many areas to check or a numerical pass mark.

Our suggested review question

What do our spot checks, joint inspections and previous review actions tell us together?

Read the original source

Perranzabuloe Parish Council

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Layered assurance separates random checks, joint inspections, performance meetings and KPI review

Record type: Tender requirement Mechanism: Inspection and audit Cadence: Random; quarterly; six-monthly; annual or break point Evidence owner: Council and contractor jointly Evidence record: Check, inspection, meeting and KPI records Threshold or trigger: No sample or numeric pass threshold published Published consequence: Warnings/default route; extension depends on satisfactory performance Why this may help an FM: Separate day-to-day checking from formal governance Important limitation: No sample size or pass threshold

Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025

Source pack: S03 Published or source date: Available 2025-02-04 Jurisdiction and setting: England; parish council public conveniences Exact locator: ITT 1.4 and Schedule 2 clause 26, PDF pp2-3 and 20

Reference: PPC-02

How well does the contractor deal with problems?

This published requirement scores contractor responsiveness and problem-solving on a scale from 1 to 5.

Records used: Communications and complaints recorded as issues arise, then used during performance reviews.
What this doesn’t establish: It sets no target for how quickly a complaint must be answered or resolved.

Our suggested review question

Which issues are still open, how long have they been open, and what response have we received?

Read the original source

Perranzabuloe Parish Council

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Contractor responsiveness and problem-solving are scored using communications and complaints

Record type: Tender requirement Mechanism: Complaint learning Cadence: Event-driven; review-cycle scoring Evidence owner: Council and contractor communications Evidence record: Communications and complaints log Threshold or trigger: Scored on the contract's 1-5 framework; no response-time target Published consequence: General contract remedies; no complaint-specific penalty Why this may help an FM: Turn complaint responsiveness into an auditable performance input Important limitation: No response-time or closure-time target

Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025

Source pack: S03 Published or source date: Available 2025-02-04 Jurisdiction and setting: England; parish council public conveniences Exact locator: Appendix 2 KPI table, PDF p44

Reference: PPC-03

Do inspections and staff feedback tell the same story?

This published requirement combines spot checks, joint inspections and customer comments in a cleaning-quality score from 1 to 5.

Records used: Inspection results and customer feedback, including quarterly joint inspections.
What this doesn’t establish: The document does not give a numerical cleanliness threshold or an objective test.

Our suggested review question

Where do inspections and staff feedback agree or differ, and what should we investigate?

Read the original source

Perranzabuloe Parish Council

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Cleaning quality triangulated from spot checks, joint inspections and customer comments on a 1-5 scale

Record type: Tender requirement Mechanism: Inspection and audit Cadence: Spot, quarterly and review-cycle Evidence owner: Council spot checks and joint inspection; customer input Evidence record: Inspection results and customer feedback Threshold or trigger: 1-5 scoring scale; no numeric cleanliness threshold Published consequence: General default and remedy framework Why this may help an FM: Triangulate authority observation and user feedback Important limitation: No numeric cleanliness threshold or objective test

Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025

Source pack: S03 Published or source date: Available 2025-02-04 Jurisdiction and setting: England; parish council public conveniences Exact locator: Appendix 2 KPI table and scoring key, PDF pp44-45

Reference: PPC-04

What exactly does an inspection check?

This published specification describes visible cleanliness, odour, scale, grime, waste, floor condition and stocked supplies.

Records used: Supervisor inspections, council spot checks and a written or digital cleaning record.
What this doesn’t establish: Most checks rely on what someone can see or smell; the specification gives no numerical pass mark.

Our suggested review question

Are our inspection records checking the actual conditions listed in our specification?

Read the original source

Syston Town Council

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Observable acceptance criteria cover visible cleanliness, odour, scale, grime, waste, dry or signed floors and stocked consumables

Record type: Tender requirement Mechanism: Outcome standard Cadence: Routine service and inspections Evidence owner: Contractor supervisor and council Evidence record: Supervisor inspection, council spot checks and schedule or digital record Threshold or trigger: Observable condition criteria; no numeric threshold Published consequence: Prompt rectification; general breach may support termination Why this may help an FM: Test the service against observable acceptance criteria Important limitation: Mostly subjective visual and odour evidence

Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029

Source pack: S04 Published or source date: 2026 tender; deadline 2026-03-11 Jurisdiction and setting: England; town council public conveniences Exact locator: Appendix B clauses 8-9 and 14, PDF pp12-14

Reference: SYS-01

Are less frequent cleaning tasks being missed?

This published specification separates daily cleaning from monthly work on selected high surfaces and quarterly cleaning behind fixtures.

Records used: A schedule, completion checklist or digital record, supported by inspections.
What this doesn’t establish: A schedule describes when work should happen. Recorded completion does not establish the quality of the result.

Our suggested review question

Which monthly or quarterly tasks were due, and what shows they were completed satisfactorily?

Read the original source

Syston Town Council

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Cleaning frequencies differ by risk and task: routine daily, selected high surfaces monthly, behind fixtures quarterly

Record type: Tender requirement Mechanism: Planned completion Cadence: Daily; monthly; quarterly Evidence owner: Contractor schedule or digital record; council inspection Evidence record: Schedule, checklist or digital completion record plus inspection Threshold or trigger: Daily, monthly and quarterly duties as specified Published consequence: Prompt rectification and general breach provisions Why this may help an FM: Distinguish missed routine work from missed periodic work Important limitation: Frequency proves planned activity, not outcome quality

Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029

Source pack: S04 Published or source date: 2026 tender; deadline 2026-03-11 Jurisdiction and setting: England; town council public conveniences Exact locator: Appendix B clauses 2 and 5, PDF pp9 and 11-12

Reference: SYS-02

Does the invoice match the work recorded?

This published requirement says each invoice must include the dates and schedule of completed work.

Records used: The monthly invoice, dated work schedule and council inspection records.
What this doesn’t establish: Dated entries show what work is claimed. They do not establish that it met the cleaning standard.

Our suggested review question

Can we match the invoice to dated work records and account for anything missed?

Read the original source

Syston Town Council

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Each invoice must include the dates and schedule of work completed so billing can be reconciled to delivery

Record type: Tender requirement Mechanism: Financial reconciliation Cadence: Monthly invoice; regular inspection Evidence owner: Contractor submits; council inspects Evidence record: Dated work schedule, invoice and council inspection Threshold or trigger: Each invoice includes schedule and dates; no numeric KPI Published consequence: General contract and breach framework Why this may help an FM: Reconcile billed activity to dated delivery Important limitation: Dated entries confirm claimed work, not that it met the standard

Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029

Source pack: S04 Published or source date: 2026 tender; deadline 2026-03-11 Jurisdiction and setting: England; town council public conveniences Exact locator: Appendix A notes e-f, PDF pp7-8

Reference: SYS-03

Is this a cleaning issue or a maintenance problem?

This published specification separates cleaning issues from maintenance defects, vandalism, misuse and immediate hazards.

Records used: Cleaning, maintenance and incident logs, updated when issues arise.
What this doesn’t establish: Identifying and reporting the cause does not show that the problem has been resolved.

Our suggested review question

Have we identified the cause, assigned the right owner and recorded what happened next?

Read the original source

Syston Town Council

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Separate cleaning-service issues from maintenance defects, vandalism, misuse and immediate hazards

Record type: Tender requirement Mechanism: Issue classification Cadence: Ongoing; incident-triggered Evidence owner: Contractor logs and reports to council Evidence record: Cleaning, maintenance and incident logs Threshold or trigger: Immediate reporting for specified hazards; otherwise no closure SLA Published consequence: No issue-specific consequence published Why this may help an FM: Allocate responsibility between cleaning, asset defect and misuse Important limitation: Reporting the right cause does not prove resolution

Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029

Source pack: S04 Published or source date: 2026 tender; deadline 2026-03-11 Jurisdiction and setting: England; town council public conveniences Exact locator: Appendix B clauses 9-10, PDF pp12-13

Reference: SYS-04

Was the carpet stain actually dealt with?

This published requirement asks for both a carpet spill or stain and the result of its treatment to be reported.

Records used: A facilities report recording the incident and treatment result when it occurs.
What this doesn’t establish: This requirement concerns carpet marks and spillages; it is not a general test of the whole building.

Our suggested review question

What treatment was recorded, and did the follow-up record show whether the stain remained?

Read the original source

UK Debt Management Office

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Carpet stains and spillages require both the incident and the treatment outcome to be reported

Record type: Contract requirement Mechanism: Reactive rectification Cadence: Occurrence-triggered within daily service Evidence owner: Contractor reports to DMO Facilities Evidence record: Facilities report recording incident and treatment result Threshold or trigger: Treat as soon as discovered; no numeric response threshold Published consequence: Re-performance at provider cost or replacement service may apply Why this may help an FM: Distinguish action attempted from treatment outcome Important limitation: Narrowly applies to carpet marks and spillages

Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off

Source pack: S05 Published or source date: 2019-09 to 2019-11 Jurisdiction and setting: UK Debt Management Office Exact locator: Statement of Requirements 5.2.1.3 p4; call-off 9.3

Reference: DMO-01

What records should we bring to the review?

This published requirement brings together inspections, work delivered, invoices, complaints, improvements, service changes and incidents.

Records used: The relevant reports and records for regular contract reviews.
What this doesn’t establish: It lists the information to discuss but gives no fixed meeting interval or pass mark.

Our suggested review question

Do we have the records behind each issue, the contractor’s response and the previous agreed actions?

Read the original source

UK Debt Management Office

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Formal reviews join monitoring, inspections, invoices versus delivery, complaints, improvement, service changes and incidents

Record type: Contract requirement Mechanism: Review governance Cadence: Periodic or regular; exact interval unstated Evidence owner: Contractor account team and DMO Evidence record: Reports, inspections, invoices, complaints, improvement and incident records Threshold or trigger: No fixed public interval or pass threshold Published consequence: Unresolved failures can enter contractual remedies Why this may help an FM: Use a joined evidence set in formal contract reviews Important limitation: Defines the review data model, not pass or fail thresholds

Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off

Source pack: S05 Published or source date: 2019-09 to 2019-11 Jurisdiction and setting: UK Debt Management Office Exact locator: Statement of Requirements 12.2-12.4, pp9-10

Reference: DMO-02

Can we verify the contractor’s performance report?

This published requirement asks the supplier for monitoring tools and information detailed enough for the customer to check the agreed service levels.

Records used: Supplier checks, reports and supporting records, supplied during the service cycle or on request.
What this doesn’t establish: Not every target or payment deduction is public, so the published clauses do not give a complete scoring system.

Our suggested review question

Can we trace the reported result back to records that show whether our agreed service level was met?

Read the original source

UK Debt Management Office

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

The supplier must implement monitoring tools and management information detailed enough for the buyer to verify SLA compliance

Record type: Signed contract requirement Mechanism: Evidence verifiability Cadence: Continuous or SLA cycle; on-request reporting Evidence owner: Supplier produces monitoring information; DMO verifies Evidence record: Supplier measurement tools, reports and management information Threshold or trigger: Sufficient detail to verify SLA compliance Published consequence: Service credits, re-performance, replacement service or termination can apply Why this may help an FM: Test whether the supplier can make its own SLA performance verifiable Important limitation: Not every SLA value or credit amount is public

Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off

Source pack: S05 Published or source date: 2019-09 to 2019-11 Jurisdiction and setting: UK Debt Management Office Exact locator: Call-off 7.1-7.2 and 9.1-9.4, pp31-33

Reference: DMO-03

Open source-pack page

Were inspection findings put right on time?

This published requirement sets a 95% target for monthly cleaning audits and correction of failures within agreed timescales.

Records used: Monthly audit findings and records of work to put them right at the covered properties.
What this doesn’t establish: The payment-deduction table leaves one value blank. No deduction should be assumed for that missing entry.

Our suggested review question

Which findings remain open, what deadlines were agreed, and what records show completed corrections?

Read the original source

Scottish Government

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Read with care: The source leaves one deduction value blank; no value has been inferred.

Full example

Monthly cleaning audits must be completed and non-conformances rectified within agreed timescales

Record type: Contract KPI Mechanism: Inspection and audit Cadence: Monthly Evidence owner: Contractor records; Scottish Government assesses Evidence record: Audit and rectification records for core properties Threshold or trigger: 95% Published consequence: Failure removes KPI points; total score may drive financial deductions Why this may help an FM: Check both audit completion and whether non-conformances closed Important limitation: The score-to-deduction table has a blank at 99, so no value should be inferred

Facilities management procurement CASE/437570

Source pack: S07 Published or source date: Scope 2020-06-23; KPI position 2024-05-30; FOI release 2024-09-03 Jurisdiction and setting: Scotland; government estate Exact locator: KPI workbook, KPI List, KPI 3 measure 3.1

Reference: SG-FM-01

Open source-pack page

Do the monthly reports lead to clear actions?

This published requirement combines contractor checks, audits, inspections and maintenance-system trends, with actions included in the monthly report.

Records used: Ongoing checking records, internal and external audits, inspections and a monthly action report.
What this doesn’t establish: These clauses do not provide a separate formula for payment deductions.

Our suggested review question

What changed in the records this month, and what specific actions have been recorded in response?

Read the original source

Scottish Government

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Management information combines self-monitoring, audits, inspections and CAFM trend analysis, with actions in the monthly report

Record type: Tender/specification requirement Mechanism: Reporting assurance Cadence: Continuous records; monthly report Evidence owner: Contractor produces MIS; client may independently audit Evidence record: CAFM records, internal and external audits, inspections and action report Threshold or trigger: Action-oriented monthly reporting; no standalone numeric threshold Published consequence: Contractor must act; client may conduct independent audits Why this may help an FM: Distinguish repeated or systemic failure from isolated tickets Important limitation: No standalone deduction formula in these clauses

Facilities management procurement CASE/437570

Source pack: S07 Published or source date: Scope 2020-06-23; KPI position 2024-05-30; FOI release 2024-09-03 Jurisdiction and setting: Scotland; government estate Exact locator: FM Scope 3.3.1-3.4.5, printed pp10-12

Reference: SG-FM-03

Open source-pack page

What is being done to stop complaints recurring?

This published requirement says complaints about contractor staff must be investigated, resolved and followed by action to reduce recurrence.

Records used: Complaint, investigation, response and prevention records, included in the monthly report.
What this doesn’t establish: The clause does not promise an automatic reduction in payment following a complaint.

Our suggested review question

What caused the complaint, what was done, and how will we check whether the problem returns?

Read the original source

Scottish Government

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Complaints about contractor staff must be investigated, resolved, protected against recurrence and reported with actions

Record type: Tender/specification requirement Mechanism: Complaint learning Cadence: Event-triggered; monthly report Evidence owner: Contractor investigates and reports; client reviews Evidence record: Complaint, investigation, response and prevention-action records Threshold or trigger: Investigation, resolution and recurrence mitigation required Published consequence: No automatic service credit stated Why this may help an FM: Check whether complaints create corrective learning Important limitation: No automatic service credit is stated in the clause

Facilities management procurement CASE/437570

Source pack: S07 Published or source date: Scope 2020-06-23; KPI position 2024-05-30; FOI release 2024-09-03 Jurisdiction and setting: Scotland; government estate Exact locator: FM Scope 3.8.15-3.8.16, printed p17

Reference: SG-FM-04

Open source-pack page

Can we see what work was recorded in each area?

This published requirement calls for a daily cleaning activity sheet for every contracted area.

Records used: Date, time, area, cleaner name and signature, available the same day on request.
What this doesn’t establish: The sheet records attendance and activity. It does not establish the cleaning result.

Our suggested review question

Are all agreed areas covered in the daily records, and how is the result checked?

Read the original source

Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

A cleaning activity sheet creates an attributable record for every contracted area each day

Record type: Contract requirement Mechanism: Attendance attribution Cadence: Daily; available same day on request Evidence owner: Named cleaner records; buyer can request Evidence record: Date, time, area, cleaner name and signature Threshold or trigger: Every contracted area recorded daily Published consequence: No standalone credit published Why this may help an FM: Check whether claimed attendance and activity happened Important limitation: Attendance evidence does not prove the result

Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401

Source pack: S08 Published or source date: 2025 pack; page updated 2025-07-10 Jurisdiction and setting: Northern Ireland civil service Exact locator: Schedule 02, 5.2 Implementation of Operations

Reference: NI-CLN-01

Open source-pack page

What does a missed cleaning standard mean for payment?

This published requirement links monthly cleanliness scores of 3, 2 or 1 to graduated payment deductions.

Records used: A joint supplier-and-customer performance report and a building monitoring sheet each month.
What this doesn’t establish: The deductions have conditions and apply to the relevant building under this contract. They are not a general rule for other contracts.

Our suggested review question

Does our contract link missed standards to payment, and do the records support the conditions for that response?

Read the original source

Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Monthly cleanliness score of 3, 2 or 1 drives graduated commercial deductions

Record type: Contract KPI Mechanism: Escalation and remedy Cadence: Monthly Evidence owner: Supplier and buyer jointly report Evidence record: Supplier-and-buyer performance report and building monitoring sheet Threshold or trigger: Monthly performance score 3, 2 or 1 Published consequence: Score 2 can trigger 10% after no improvement; score 1 triggers 10%, rising to 15% Why this may help an FM: Use a graduated commercial response instead of a binary pass or fail Important limitation: Deductions apply to the relevant building, not a universal contract benchmark

Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401

Source pack: S08 Published or source date: 2025 pack; page updated 2025-07-10 Jurisdiction and setting: Northern Ireland civil service Exact locator: Schedule 13, Performance Index Ratings and Annex A KPI 2

Reference: NI-CLN-02

Open source-pack page

Were absences covered and attendance recorded?

This published requirement sets a 98% attendance target and links shortfalls to deductions, with a possible exception when the issue is corrected the same day.

Records used: Monthly attendance records checked against the agreed staffing and cover arrangements.
What this doesn’t establish: Attendance measures staffing cover, not cleanliness. Any deduction depends on the terms of this contract.

Our suggested review question

What attendance shortfalls occurred, how were they covered, and what effect did they have on the service?

Read the original source

Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Staff-cover arrangements and attendance below 98% are linked to a per-percentage-point deduction

Record type: Contract KPI Mechanism: Labour delivery Cadence: Monthly Evidence owner: Supplier attendance records; buyer assesses Evidence record: Attendance records against agreed operating procedures Threshold or trigger: At least 98% attendance Published consequence: 1.5% of building monthly fixed cost per full point below 98%; same-day remedy may avoid credit Why this may help an FM: Make staffing resilience financially visible Important limitation: Input and resilience measure, not a direct cleanliness outcome

Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401

Source pack: S08 Published or source date: 2025 pack; page updated 2025-07-10 Jurisdiction and setting: Northern Ireland civil service Exact locator: Schedule 13, Pass or Fail Scoring and Annex A KPI 4

Reference: NI-CLN-03

Open source-pack page

Did we receive the monthly report in time?

This published requirement asks for every site’s cleaning audit and performance report within ten working days after month end.

Records used: An agreed-format site audit and monthly performance report.
What this doesn’t establish: Receiving a report on time does not independently establish that its contents are accurate.

Our suggested review question

Did every site report arrive by our agreed deadline, and can we check the records behind it?

Read the original source

Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Every site must receive a monthly audit-check report covering cleaning standard and site KPI performance within ten working days

Record type: Contract KPI Mechanism: Reporting assurance Cadence: Monthly; due within ten working days after month end Evidence owner: Supplier submits; supplier and buyer report Evidence record: Agreed-format site audit and supplier or buyer report Threshold or trigger: Every-site report within ten working days after month end Published consequence: Performance-index deductions apply Why this may help an FM: Compare sites promptly and avoid late retrospective evidence Important limitation: Measures report timeliness and content, not independent accuracy

Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401

Source pack: S08 Published or source date: 2025 pack; page updated 2025-07-10 Jurisdiction and setting: Northern Ireland civil service Exact locator: Schedule 13, Annex A KPI 6

Reference: NI-CLN-04

Open source-pack page

How quickly must a suspected failure be put right?

A vehicle-test-centre specification allows inspection or testing of suspected failures and requires correction within three working days, or immediately for a safety risk.

Records used: Inspection or test findings, fault records and review records.
What this doesn’t establish: These response times and financial consequences belong to that vehicle-test-centre contract; they are not general office-cleaning rules.

Our suggested review question

What response time does our own contract require, and what records show when the issue was identified and corrected?

Read the original source

Northern Ireland Department of Finance / CPD

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Read with care: This consequence is conditional and specific to the source setting.

Full example

Suspected failures may be inspected or tested and must be remedied within three working days, or immediately for safety risk

Record type: Contract requirement Mechanism: Operational consequence Cadence: Event-triggered; quarterly review; annual management review Evidence owner: DVA inspects/tests; supplier remedies Evidence record: Inspection or test, fault-management and review records Threshold or trigger: Three working days, or immediately for a safety risk Published consequence: Supplier-funded remedy; full centre service-charge credit for missed/below-standard cleaning; extra charges only when failure causes cancelled tests, with 50% compensation tied to short-notice cancellation Why this may help an FM: Connect cleaning failure to operational interruption while keeping DVA-specific rules bounded Important limitation: DVA-specific consequence; not a general NI rule

Cleaning Services contract ID 5067401

Source pack: S08 Published or source date: 2025 pack; page updated 2025-07-10 Jurisdiction and setting: Northern Ireland; vehicle test centres Exact locator: Schedule 02, DVA-specific 5.2 and 6.1-6.4, table 1

Reference: NI-DVA-05

Open source-pack page

Were all the contracted cleaning hours delivered?

This tender requirement asks for 100% of contracted cleaning hours, supported by detailed electronic records.

Records used: Weekly clock-in and clock-out evidence and an electronic hours report, reviewed against a monthly target.
What this doesn’t establish: Hours worked do not establish cleaning quality. The award notice does not confirm that these tender terms became the final contract unchanged.

Our suggested review question

Can we reconcile contracted hours with recorded hours, including any gaps or cover arrangements?

Read the original source

Trivallis

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Read with care: The award notice does not confirm that every tender-annex term entered the executed contract unchanged.

Full example

One hundred percent of contracted hours must be completed and backed by detailed electronic cleaner-hour records

Record type: Tender KPI - awarded procurement Mechanism: Labour delivery Cadence: Weekly evidence; monthly KPI Evidence owner: Contractor supplies electronic records; Trivallis calculates Evidence record: Clock-in and clock-out records and electronic hours report Threshold or trigger: 100% of contracted hours Published consequence: Monthly yes/no KPI; no numeric credit published Why this may help an FM: Find missing labour before interpreting quality impact Important limitation: Paid hours do not prove outcome quality; award notice does not prove the tender KPI annex was executed unchanged

TRIV2025-08 Office Cleaning Services

Source pack: S09 Published or source date: Tender pack 2025-10-16; award notice 2026-02-03 Jurisdiction and setting: Wales; social housing offices Exact locator: Annex 6 KPI 2 p1; Annex 4 p4

Reference: WAL-TRI-02

Open source-pack page

How are the contractor’s own checks reviewed?

This tender requirement sets a target above 95% for contractor self-audits and asks for random audit dates and times.

Records used: Monthly supplier audit reports reviewed by the facilities team.
What this doesn’t establish: These are the contractor’s own checks. The award notice does not confirm the tender terms became the final contract unchanged.

Our suggested review question

Which areas were checked, when were they checked, and how has our team reviewed the findings?

Read the original source

Trivallis

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Read with care: The award notice does not confirm that every tender-annex term entered the executed contract unchanged.

Full example

Provider self-audits must exceed 95% and include random audit dates and times

Record type: Tender KPI - awarded procurement Mechanism: Inspection and audit Cadence: Monthly Evidence owner: Contractor self-audits; Trivallis Facilities reviews Evidence record: Supplier audit reports reviewed by Facilities Threshold or trigger: Above 95% Published consequence: Underperformance affects satisfactory-performance assessment; no numeric deduction published Why this may help an FM: Test the frequency and sampling of provider self-audit Important limitation: Provider-generated evidence; independence depends on client review; award notice does not prove the tender KPI annex was executed unchanged

TRIV2025-08 Office Cleaning Services

Source pack: S09 Published or source date: Tender pack 2025-10-16; award notice 2026-02-03 Jurisdiction and setting: Wales; social housing offices Exact locator: Annex 6 KPI 3 p1

Reference: WAL-TRI-03

Open source-pack page

Were inspection findings followed through?

This tender requirement connects customer inspections, recorded defects, complaints and the contractor’s corrective actions.

Records used: Facilities inspections, defect and complaint records, and contractor responses feeding into the monthly review.
What this doesn’t establish: The inspection frequency is not specified. The award notice does not confirm that the tender terms became the final contract unchanged.

Our suggested review question

Can we follow each finding through the agreed action to a later check of the result?

Read the original source

Trivallis

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Read with care: The award notice does not confirm that every tender-annex term entered the executed contract unchanged.

Full example

Client inspections, defect remediation, complaints and countermeasures form one performance loop

Record type: Tender KPI - awarded procurement Mechanism: Inspection and audit Cadence: Periodic inspections; monthly KPI Evidence owner: Trivallis Facilities inspects; contractor remedies and reports Evidence record: Facilities inspections, defect records, complaint reports and supplier countermeasures Threshold or trigger: Above 95% Published consequence: Remediation and named escalation required; timetable agreed before start Why this may help an FM: Separate provider self-audit from client verification and track countermeasures Important limitation: Inspection input is only described as periodic; exact cadence is absent; award notice does not prove the tender KPI annex was executed unchanged

TRIV2025-08 Office Cleaning Services

Source pack: S09 Published or source date: Tender pack 2025-10-16; award notice 2026-02-03 Jurisdiction and setting: Wales; social housing offices Exact locator: Annex 6 KPI 4 p1; Annex 4 p4

Reference: WAL-TRI-04

Open source-pack page

Are checks reviewed by more than one management level?

A published school-estate contract notice describes monthly supervisor audits and quarterly contracts-manager inspections, with a target of at least 92%.

Records used: Supervisor and contracts-manager inspection scores, at their respective monthly and quarterly intervals.
What this doesn’t establish: The public notice does not include a formula for payment reductions when standards are missed.

Our suggested review question

Who reviews the supervisor’s checks, and how are differences or recurring findings addressed?

Read the original source

Harris Federation

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Two-level inspection: supervisor monthly and contracts manager quarterly, against a 92% threshold

Record type: Contract notice KPI Mechanism: Inspection and audit Cadence: Monthly and quarterly Evidence owner: Supervisor audits; contracts manager inspects Evidence record: Supervisor and contracts-manager audit scores Threshold or trigger: At least 92% Published consequence: No service-credit formula published; extension remains discretionary Why this may help an FM: Use two levels of checking against a clear acceptance threshold Important limitation: No service-credit formula in the public notice

PP-10167 cleaning-services UK7 contract-details notice

Source pack: S10 Published or source date: Published 2026-07-02 Jurisdiction and setting: England; education estate Exact locator: UK7 notice Lot 1, KPI IDs 1 and 7

Reference: EDU-HAR-01

What happens to cleaning hours that were missed?

A published school-estate contract notice requires missed cleaning hours to be reused or credited in the monthly invoice.

Records used: Labour-hours records and the monthly invoice breakdown.
What this doesn’t establish: This accounts for paid and delivered hours. It does not establish the resulting cleanliness.

Our suggested review question

Which hours were missed, where were they reused, and which should appear as an invoice credit under our agreement?

Read the original source

Harris Federation

A published requirement: this describes what is expected, not an achieved result.

Source details and full wording

Published requirement — not observed performance.

Full example

Dropped cleaning hours must be reused or shown as a credit in the monthly invoice breakdown

Record type: Contract notice KPI Mechanism: Financial reconciliation Cadence: Monthly Evidence owner: Supplier invoice and labour records; Harris Federation reviews Evidence record: Invoice breakdown and labour-hours record Threshold or trigger: Dropped hours must be reused or credited Published consequence: Explicit invoice credit when dropped hours are not reused Why this may help an FM: Reconcile paid labour with delivered labour Important limitation: Shows labour reconciliation, not resulting cleanliness

PP-10167 cleaning-services UK7 contract-details notice

Source pack: S10 Published or source date: Published 2026-07-02 Jurisdiction and setting: England; education estate Exact locator: UK7 notice Lot 1, KPI 8 Financial Management

Reference: EDU-HAR-02

Cleaning KPI examples: choose what to measure

Which cleaning KPIs should I choose?

How to use these examples

Compare measures for your contract

Was the building ready before staff arrived?

Full example

RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack

Were urgent cleaning requests dealt with on time?

Full example

RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack

Were scheduled deep cleans completed on time?

Full example

RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack

Was window cleaning completed to the agreed standard?

Full example

RM6232 Facilities Management and Workplace Services framework pack

Do more complaints mean cleaning has got worse?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

What sits behind the cleaning report’s score?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Who answered the cleaning satisfaction survey?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

What happens after cleaning standards are missed?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Have we agreed what visibly clean looks like?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Were the agreed cleaning shifts covered?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

How was the cleaning performance score calculated?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Does the completion score actually describe cleaning?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Were floors ready at the agreed opening time?

Full example

Key Performance Indicators for Government's Most Important Contracts, January-March 2026

Is there a record of each cleaning visit?

Full example

Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025

Are we bringing the different checks together?

Full example

Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025

How well does the contractor deal with problems?

Full example

Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025

Do inspections and staff feedback tell the same story?

Full example

Public Conveniences Cleaning Contract PPC-001-2025

What exactly does an inspection check?

Full example

Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029

Are less frequent cleaning tasks being missed?

Full example

Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029

Does the invoice match the work recorded?

Full example

Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029

Is this a cleaning issue or a maintenance problem?

Full example

Public Convenience Cleaning Contract 2026-2029

Was the carpet stain actually dealt with?

Full example

Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off

What records should we bring to the review?

Full example

Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off

Can we verify the contractor’s performance report?

Full example

Cleaning Services DMO277 statement and signed call-off

Were inspection findings put right on time?

Full example

Facilities management procurement CASE/437570

Do the monthly reports lead to clear actions?