Reconstruction of the courtyard landscaping at Pētera Street 8, Ventspils, and the territory landscaping at Saules Street 35, Ventspils

This tender demonstrates a standard procurement process for works, but is significantly hampered by a lack of transparency regarding the estimated value and restricted document access, alongside missing explicit evaluation criteria.

The tender adheres to basic legal requirements with a reasonable submission period, clear procedure, and appropriate CPV codes. However, the undisclosed estimated value and restricted document access present transparency issues that could be seen as non-compliant with best practices for open procurement.

The project description and AI-extracted requirements are clear and well-structured. However, the explicit flag indicating 'No evaluation criteria specified' is a significant deficiency, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their proposals will be assessed.

Most essential information, including title, organization, deadlines, duration, and location, is provided. All three tender documents are attached. Nevertheless, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the lack of clearly specified evaluation criteria impacts the overall completeness of the tender package.

While e-procurement is enabled and requirements appear generic, fairness is severely compromised by restricted document access, the undisclosed estimated value, and the absence of clearly specified evaluation criteria. These factors create an uneven playing field for potential bidders.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration is clearly stated. However, the absence of a contract start date and financing information (estimated value) reduces practicality. Restricted document access also poses a practical hurdle for interested parties.

Dates are logical, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. Most key fields are populated. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and there is a noted inconsistency regarding the explicit specification of evaluation criteria, despite their mention in a document summary.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social, or innovation-focused criteria. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, suggesting a lack of emphasis on broader sustainability objectives.