Construction supervision for the reconstruction of the event hall at Tukums E. Birznieks-Upītis 1st Primary School, Lielā iela 9, Tukums

This tender for construction supervision services exhibits significant concerns regarding transparency and fairness due to restricted document access, undisclosed estimated value, and a lack of explicitly defined evaluation criteria. While basic information is present, these critical gaps undermine the quality of the procurement process.

The tender defines the procedure as 'open' and includes mandatory exclusion grounds, indicating adherence to basic legal frameworks. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' for an open procedure is a critical legal compliance issue, hindering equal access and transparency. The 'Value not disclosed' also raises transparency concerns.

The service description is clear, and requirements are structured into categories. However, the critical issue of 'No evaluation criteria specified' (as flagged and not explicitly detailed in AI-extracted requirements) severely impacts clarity. Bidders cannot effectively prepare offers without understanding the basis of evaluation.

Basic information, deadlines, and duration are provided, and all listed documents are summarized. However, the tender is incomplete due to the 'Value not disclosed' and the absence of explicitly defined evaluation criteria, which are fundamental components for a comprehensive tender.

Fairness is significantly compromised by 'Restricted document access', 'Value not disclosed', and the critical absence of 'No evaluation criteria specified'. These factors create an uneven playing field, limit transparency, and make it difficult for bidders to submit competitive and relevant proposals.

The tender specifies a contract duration, but the 'Value not disclosed' and the absence of a clear contract start date reduce practicality for bidders in planning and resource allocation. Ambiguity regarding e-submission (contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and 'No e-submission' flag) also poses practical hurdles.

While dates are logical and there are no disputes, significant inconsistencies exist. The 'E-Procurement' characteristic contradicts the 'No e-submission' flag. Furthermore, the 'No evaluation criteria specified' flag conflicts with document summaries mentioning evaluation criteria. The 'Restricted document access' for an 'open' procedure is also a fundamental inconsistency.

The tender shows no explicit focus on sustainability, lacking green procurement, social criteria, or innovation aspects. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.