Bridge Construction Works (Viesatas bridge on road V1153; Glāžupe bridge on road P15; Meļļupe culvert on road P30 and Bikstupe bridge on road V1484) (3 contracts)

This tender for bridge construction works is severely hampered by a critical lack of accessible documentation and undisclosed estimated value, making it highly impractical and potentially unfair for bidders. While some qualification criteria are clear, the overall process lacks transparency and robust quality assurance.

Mandatory exclusion grounds are appropriately included. However, the absence of accessible tender documents and an undisclosed estimated value raise significant concerns regarding transparency and adherence to fundamental public procurement principles.

While specific eligibility and technical requirements are listed, the overall clarity is severely compromised by the complete absence of full tender documents. The clause requiring bidders to include unitemized works is ambiguous and shifts undue risk. The 'aesthetically pleasing' criterion lacks objective definition.

The tender is critically incomplete due to the lack of any attached documents, including detailed specifications, Bill of Quantities, or project plans. The estimated value is also missing, which is a fundamental piece of information for bidders.

The procurement process appears unfair due to the restricted access to tender documents and the undisclosed estimated value, which disadvantages bidders without prior knowledge. The clause requiring bidders to encompass unitemized works, combined with a lowest-price evaluation, places excessive risk on bidders and could potentially favor those with insider information.

It is highly impractical for potential bidders to prepare a comprehensive, accurate, and competitive offer without access to any tender documents, detailed specifications, or a Bill of Quantities. This significantly impedes effective participation.

There is an inconsistency between the qualitative requirements (e.g., 'durable, safe, and aesthetically pleasing' solutions) and the sole evaluation criterion of 'lowest proposed contract price'. Without clear weighting or objective scoring for qualitative aspects, these requirements become difficult to assess consistently.

The tender does not appear to integrate any specific green procurement or sustainability criteria, as indicated by the 'Not green procurement' flag. This represents a missed opportunity for environmental and social benefits.