Development of a construction project and author supervision for a multimodal public transport hub in Gulbene city

This tender is severely hampered by critical issues, primarily restricted document access and conflicting information regarding evaluation criteria and e-submission, which undermine legal compliance, fairness, and practicality despite a clear project description.

Legal compliance is critically low due to the explicit flag of 'Restricted document access'. This fundamentally violates principles of transparency and equal treatment in public procurement. While the procedure type, CPV code, and deadline are appropriate, the inability to access full tender documents is a major legal deficiency.

Despite a clear project description and references to detailed documents ('Nolikums', 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības'), the 'Restricted document access' renders the tender unclear for potential bidders. The 'No content extracted' for a potentially critical map document and the flag of 'Missing evaluation criteria' further reduce overall clarity.

While basic information, deadlines, and value are provided, the tender is functionally incomplete due to 'Restricted document access'. Bidders cannot fully understand or respond to requirements if the detailed documents are inaccessible. The missing content summary for the map also indicates a gap.

Fairness is critically compromised by 'Restricted document access' and the 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag. Without full access to tender documents and clear, transparent evaluation criteria, bidders cannot compete on an equal footing, making the process inherently unfair.

Despite the 'E-Procurement' characteristic, the 'Restricted document access' makes the tender highly impractical for bidders to prepare and submit proposals. The absence of a specified contract start date also adds a minor practical ambiguity.

Data consistency is poor due to several direct contradictions: 'E-Procurement' characteristic versus 'No e-submission' flag, 'Restricted document access' versus the presence of document summaries, and the 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag versus the summary of Document 6 stating it outlines evaluation criteria. These inconsistencies indicate unreliable data presentation.

The tender does not include any explicit sustainability criteria, such as green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also noted as not being EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.