Clearing of 0.4-20kV power transmission line routes in the Daugavpils sections of AS "Sadales tīkls" Eastern Network Department, Ventspils sections of Western Network Department, and Ķekava sections of Vidzeme Network Department.

This tender is generally well-structured with clear requirements and an open procedure. However, it presents some concerns regarding document accessibility and a notable absence of sustainability criteria.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, assigns an appropriate CPV code, and specifies reasonable deadlines (31 days). No disputes or suspensions are noted. The 'Restricted document access' flag is a potential concern for full compliance with disclosure requirements, though the content was available for analysis.

The tender description is clear and unambiguous. Requirements are well-documented across various parts and appendices, covering eligibility, technical, financial, and submission aspects. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 'lowest price' for all parts, contradicting the automated check's 'No evaluation criteria specified' flag.

All basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and location, is provided. Key documents are listed and summarized, and requirements and criteria are comprehensively defined across the tender parts.

The estimated value is disclosed, and deadlines are reasonable for preparation. Evaluation criteria based on 'lowest price' are objective and transparent. E-procurement is indicated, promoting equal access. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag could create barriers for some potential bidders, impacting overall fairness.

The tender indicates 'E-Procurement' and specifies 'Elektronisko iepirkumu sistēma' for opening, suggesting electronic submission is supported. However, the automated check flags 'No e-submission', creating an inconsistency. A direct document URL is not provided, and the contract start date is not explicit, though duration is clear.

Key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. The primary inconsistencies arise from automated check flags (e.g., 'No evaluation criteria specified', 'No e-submission') that contradict the detailed content provided.

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