Production of watermarked paper, printing and delivery of phytosanitary certificate forms (double-sided)

This tender for watermarked paper and phytosanitary certificate printing demonstrates good clarity and structured requirements, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access, which raises serious concerns about fairness and completeness.

The tender defines an open procedure, specifies a reasonable submission period, and uses an appropriate CPV code. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a significant concern, as it could impede transparency and compliance with public procurement principles if bidders cannot access full documentation.

The tender's description is clear and unambiguous. AI-extracted requirements are well-structured, pointing to specific documents for detailed exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, and evaluation criteria. The specific nature of the required product (watermarked paper, phytosanitary forms) is clearly stated.

All basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and deadlines, is provided. Requirements and criteria are indicated to be defined within the attached documents. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag severely impacts the actual completeness for potential bidders, as they may not have full access to all necessary information.

The tender discloses the estimated value and supports e-procurement, promoting equal access. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a critical issue that fundamentally undermines fairness by potentially preventing all bidders from accessing essential tender documents and information.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration and estimated value are clearly specified. However, the lack of an explicit contract start date and the 'Restricted document access' flag could complicate bid preparation and planning for potential suppliers.

Key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. However, contradictions between the automated check results (e.g., 'Missing evaluation criteria', 'No e-submission') and the AI-extracted information/characteristics indicate some inconsistency in the overall data reporting.

The tender shows no explicit integration of green procurement criteria, social aspects, or innovation focus. This represents a missed opportunity to promote sustainable practices and broader societal benefits.