Renovation of J. Masloša's family doctor's practice rooms under Measure 4.1.1.3 "Strengthening the role of primary healthcare by developing infrastructure", Project No. 4.1.1.3/2/25/A/010 "Establishment of two family doctor practices in Jelgava municipality"

This tender is of moderate quality, offering a clear project description and e-procurement capabilities, but it suffers from significant shortcomings in document accessibility, clarity of evaluation criteria, and data consistency.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and the timeline is reasonable. Its EU-funded and WTO/GPA status suggests adherence to broader regulations. However, the undisclosed estimated value and restricted document access are significant concerns regarding full mandatory disclosure.

The project description is clear, and performance conditions refer to standard documents. However, the critical issue of "No evaluation criteria specified" (as flagged) or their unclear accessibility (Document 4 is marked "Required: No" despite containing them) severely impacts clarity. This inconsistency makes it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be judged.

Basic information, deadlines, and location are provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission. The ambiguity surrounding the accessibility and clarity of evaluation criteria also points to a lack of complete information for bidders.

The tender suffers from critical fairness issues, primarily "Restricted document access" and the undisclosed estimated value. Furthermore, the lack of clearly specified or easily accessible evaluation criteria creates an uneven playing field, making it difficult for all bidders to prepare competitive and compliant proposals.

Electronic submission is supported, and the duration is specified. However, the "Restricted document access" hinders practical engagement. The absence of a specific contract start date and detailed financing information (beyond "EU Funded") also reduces practicality for planning.

While most key fields are populated and dates are logical, there are significant inconsistencies. These include contradictory flags regarding evaluation criteria and e-submission, and the critical issue of Document 4 (containing evaluation criteria) being marked as 'Required: No'. The "Restricted document access" flag also contradicts "Documents available" strength, implying a partial availability.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards. However, it explicitly lacks specific green procurement, social, or innovation criteria, indicating a missed opportunity to integrate broader sustainability objectives.