Construction supervision services for the reconstruction of Skolas Street in Riebiņi village

This tender for construction supervision services demonstrates good foundational information but is significantly hampered by critical issues regarding transparency, completeness, and fairness, primarily due to restricted document access and the absence of specified evaluation criteria.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. It is EU-funded and WTO/GPA compliant in principle. However, 'Restricted document access' and the critical 'No evaluation criteria specified' are significant legal compliance deficiencies, impacting transparency and equal treatment.

The project description and performance conditions are clear. AI-extracted requirements are understandable. However, the explicit flag 'No evaluation criteria specified' is a major clarity issue, as bidders cannot understand how their proposals will be assessed.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided, and documents are attached. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria significantly impacts the completeness of the tender documentation.

While requirements appear generic and deadlines are reasonable, 'Restricted document access,' 'Estimated Value: Not disclosed,' and especially 'No evaluation criteria specified' are severe impediments to fairness and transparency. The contradiction regarding e-submission also raises concerns about equal access.

Contract duration and financing details are clearly specified. However, the 'No e-submission' flag (contradicting 'E-Procurement') is a significant practical drawback. 'Restricted document access' and the absence of a specific contract start date also reduce practicality for bidders.

Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no disputes. However, significant contradictions exist between the document summary and flags regarding evaluation criteria, and between characteristics and automated checks regarding e-submission, indicating poor data consistency.

The tender explicitly lacks green procurement, social, and innovation criteria. While it is EU-funded, which often encourages higher standards, these are not reflected in the specific tender requirements.