Adaptation of the Riga State Technical School infrastructure object at Piedrujas Street 17, Riga, for data center needs

This tender is well-structured with comprehensive documentation and clear requirements, but suffers from significant data inconsistencies between automated flags and document content, particularly regarding e-submission and document access. It lacks explicit sustainability considerations.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, assigns an appropriate CPV code, and provides a reasonable period between reveal and submission dates (25 days). No disputes or suspensions are noted. The 'Restricted document access' flag is a concern, but the presence of document summaries suggests content is available, likely via an e-procurement portal, which is generally compliant.

The project description is clear and unambiguous. Requirements, including eligibility, technical, financial, and submission criteria, are well-documented across multiple appendices and AI-extracted summaries. Performance conditions refer to specific draft contracts and technical specifications, enhancing clarity. The summary for Document 9 indicates evaluation criteria are specified, contradicting an automated flag.

All essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, deadlines, duration, and location, is comprehensively provided. A full set of 10 tender documents, with summaries for 9, indicates thorough documentation. Requirements and criteria are extensively defined.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the 25-day submission period is reasonable for a complex works project involving design, supervision, and construction, including a mandatory site visit. E-Procurement is listed as a characteristic, promoting equal access. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag, even if it implies portal access, could be perceived as a barrier, impacting fairness. The requirement for combined services is specific but not overtly tailored.

The tender lists 'E-Procurement' and 'Elektronisko iepirkumu sistēma' as the opening place, suggesting electronic submission is supported, which is practical. However, the automated check explicitly flags 'No e-submission', creating a significant contradiction that could confuse bidders. The mandatory on-site inspection is a practical requirement for such a project. Contract duration is specified, but not a specific start date.

While basic fields are consistently populated and dates are logical, there are critical contradictions between the automated check results and the provided document summaries/characteristics. Specifically, 'Restricted document access' vs. document summaries, 'Missing evaluation criteria' vs. Document 9 summary, and 'No e-submission' vs. 'E-Procurement' characteristic. These inconsistencies create ambiguity and reduce overall data reliability.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate green procurement principles, social aspects, or an innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often drives higher sustainability standards. This suggests a low emphasis on sustainability criteria.