Real Estate Valuation for the Needs of Viļāni Municipality Administration

This tender for real estate valuation services is well-structured with detailed requirements across multiple parts, demonstrating good completeness and clarity. However, significant concerns regarding document access and contradictory information on e-submission impact its legal compliance, fairness, and practicality.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, uses an appropriate CPV code, and has no reported disputes. Deadlines are reasonable. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern, potentially hindering full transparency and equal access to information, which are fundamental for legal compliance.

The tender provides a clear description of the services required and is well-structured into 11 distinct parts, each with specific requirements. Evaluation criteria (lowest price) are explicitly stated, and AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive.

All essential information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, classification, and location, is provided. The tender includes 13 detailed documents, ensuring comprehensive information for bidders.

The tender discloses the estimated value, sets reasonable deadlines, and uses objective 'lowest price' evaluation criteria. The use of templates for submissions promotes a level playing field. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a major concern for ensuring all bidders have equal and easy access to necessary documentation, significantly impacting fairness.

The contract duration is clearly specified. However, there is a direct contradiction between 'E-Procurement' being listed as a characteristic and the automated check stating 'No e-submission,' which creates uncertainty and could pose a significant practical barrier. An explicit contract start date is also not provided.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' is a significant inconsistency that requires clarification. The 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag is a minor inconsistency, as the criteria are present in the documents.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.