Design, supervision and construction of the object 'Development of mobility and public transport connection point in Stacijas laukums, Ķegums, Ogre municipality'

This tender for the development of a mobility and public transport hub in Ķegums is generally well-structured, with clear basic information and a reasonable deadline. However, it lacks transparency regarding financial value and evaluation criteria, and document access is restricted.

The tender adheres to general legal compliance by having a clear procedure, proper CPV code, and being an active, open competition. The deadline is reasonable. However, the lack of disclosed evaluation criteria and potential restricted document access could raise concerns regarding procedural fairness.

The description of the project is clear, and the requirements are documented in attached forms. The tender notice and regulations provide a good overview. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria impacts the clarity of how proposals will be judged.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, and deadlines. The estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission. While four documents are attached, the summary indicates that some may not have extracted content, and the absence of detailed eligibility, technical, and financial requirements in the summary is noted.

The tender is an open procedure and uses e-procurement, which promotes fairness. However, the undisclosed estimated value and the 'Restricted document access' flag significantly undermine transparency and fairness, as potential bidders cannot fully assess the scope or compare it to their capabilities without full access. The lack of specified evaluation criteria also reduces objective assessment.

The tender utilizes e-procurement, which is a positive aspect for practical submission. However, the 'No e-submission' flag in the checks is contradictory and needs clarification. The contract start date and financing information are not explicitly detailed, and the contract duration is missing, impacting practical planning for bidders.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, and deadlines are populated. The tender status is active, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Dates appear logical. The main inconsistency lies in the 'No e-submission' flag despite 'E-Procurement' being listed as a characteristic.

The tender is marked as 'EU Funded,' which often implies adherence to certain standards. However, there are no explicit mentions of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the provided information, resulting in a moderate score for sustainability.