Construction supervision for the project “Reconstruction of the sewage pressure pipeline in the Skaistkalnes Street section from Mūkusalas Street to Bauskas Street, Phase 1”

This tender presents a clear project description and reasonable deadlines, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access, undisclosed estimated value, and critical contradictions in its characteristics and evaluation criteria.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code clearly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern for transparency and equal treatment, and the estimated value is not disclosed, impacting full compliance with disclosure principles.

The project description is clear and unambiguous. Document summaries indicate that detailed requirements, exclusion/selection criteria, and the 'lowest price evaluation method' are specified within the tender documents, suggesting good clarity once accessed. The AI-extracted requirements are not comprehensive, but this may be a limitation of the extraction process rather than the tender content itself.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided. Documents are listed and summarized, indicating that requirements and criteria are defined within them. The primary deficiency is the undisclosed estimated contract value, which is a crucial piece of information for potential bidders.

Fairness is severely compromised by 'Restricted document access' and the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and 'No e-submission' flag, which creates significant barriers for bidders. The undisclosed estimated value further hinders fair assessment. While deadlines are reasonable and 'lowest price' is an objective evaluation criterion, these access and information barriers are critical.

The tender suffers from a critical practical deficiency due to the 'No e-submission' flag, making the bidding process less efficient. The absence of a direct document URL (implied by restricted access) and a specified contract start date also reduce practicality. Financing information (estimated value) is missing, though the duration is clearly stated.

Significant data consistency issues are present, notably the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' being a characteristic and 'No e-submission' being flagged as an issue. Another contradiction exists between 'No evaluation criteria specified' and the document summary stating 'lowest price evaluation method'. The estimated value is also not populated. Dates are logical and consistent, and there are no disputes.

The tender completely lacks any specified green procurement, social criteria, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, suggesting no inherent higher sustainability standards are being applied.