Development and maintenance of a 3D 360-degree virtual tour for the object "Soviet Secret Bunker in Līgatne"

This tender presents clear basic information but is significantly hampered by transparency and fairness issues, including an undisclosed value, restricted document access, and a lack of explicit evaluation criteria. The absence of e-submission and sustainability considerations further detracts from its overall quality.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code clearly, and there are no reported disputes. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern regarding legal transparency and equal access to information, which are fundamental principles of public procurement.

The service description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements are well-categorized. Nevertheless, the explicit flag 'No evaluation criteria specified' is a critical flaw, as it hinders bidders' understanding of how their offers will be assessed, despite a document summary mentioning them.

While basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided, the estimated value is not disclosed. The flagged absence of evaluation criteria and restricted document access also significantly impact the completeness of information available to potential bidders.

Fairness is severely compromised by multiple issues: restricted document access, undisclosed estimated value, and the absence of explicit evaluation criteria. The contradiction regarding e-submission, with a flag indicating 'No e-submission', also creates an unequal playing field.

The tender's practicality is low due to the flagged absence of e-submission, which complicates the bidding process. The lack of a specified contract start date and undisclosed financing information (value) also reduce the practical clarity for bidders.

While dates are logical and there are no disputes, significant inconsistencies exist. There's a contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag. Furthermore, the system flags 'No evaluation criteria specified' despite a document summary mentioning them, indicating a data discrepancy.

The tender does not incorporate any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.