Printing Services – Acquisition of Forms, Journals, Stickers

The tender exhibits moderate quality, primarily hindered by restricted document access and significant inconsistencies in information, which undermine transparency and fairness. While basic information is well-defined, the lack of sustainability focus is notable.

The tender generally complies with legal requirements, including a reasonable submission period, clear procedure type, and appropriate CPV codes. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a serious concern, potentially violating transparency principles essential for legal compliance.

The tender description is clear, and evaluation criteria (lowest price) are specified. However, the dual reference to 'Tehniskā specifikācija' also as a 'financial proposal' introduces significant ambiguity, potentially confusing bidders.

Most essential information, such as title, reference, organization, value, and duration, is provided. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag suggests that bidders may not have full access to all necessary documents, impacting the overall completeness of information available to them.

The 'Restricted document access' is a fundamental fairness issue, preventing equal access to information for all potential bidders. While evaluation criteria are objective (lowest price) and e-procurement is enabled, this restriction severely compromises the tender's fairness.

Electronic submission via the Latvian Electronic Procurement System (EIS) is supported, which is a positive for practicality. However, the 'Restricted document access' could create practical difficulties for bidders in preparing and submitting their offers.

There are significant inconsistencies, including the 'ISSUES/FLAGS' stating 'No evaluation criteria specified' while AI-extracted requirements clearly state 'lowest price criteria'. Furthermore, the 'AUTOMATED CHECK RESULTS' contradict explicit tender characteristics regarding e-submission. The dual role of 'Tehniskā specifikācija' also adds to data inconsistency.

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