Reconstruction of pedestrian pavement and lighting in Esplanade at Rīgas Street 31, Ventspils

This tender for sidewalk and lighting reconstruction in Ventspils presents a mixed quality assessment, with clear project description and defined evaluation criteria, but significant concerns regarding transparency due to undisclosed estimated value and flagged restricted document access.

The tender defines a clear open procedure with a reasonable submission deadline and appropriate CPV codes. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' and the undisclosed estimated value are significant concerns regarding transparency and equal treatment, which are fundamental legal compliance requirements.

The project description is clear and unambiguous. While AI-extracted requirements are generic, the document summaries indicate that detailed requirements, scope of work, and 'lowest price' evaluation criteria are well-documented within the tender materials, suggesting good clarity for bidders accessing the full documents.

Most essential information such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, duration, and location are provided. Documents are attached and summarized. However, the estimated contract value is not disclosed, which is a notable omission impacting the overall completeness of critical financial information.

While the tender specifies an objective 'lowest price' evaluation criterion and indicates E-Procurement, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a critical barrier to fair competition and equal access for all potential bidders. The undisclosed estimated value further compromises transparency and fairness, as bidders cannot adequately assess the project scope or prepare competitive offers.

The tender indicates E-Procurement, which supports practical electronic submission. The contract duration is specified. However, the lack of a specific contract start date, undisclosed financing information (estimated value), and the potential practical impediment of 'Restricted document access' reduce the overall practicality for bidders.

Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no disputes. However, there are inconsistencies between the 'Characteristics' and 'Automated Check' regarding e-submission, and contradictions regarding the presence of evaluation criteria. Critically, the 'Restricted document access' flag conflicts with the general notion of 'Documents available', and the estimated value is a missing key field.

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