Reconstruction of Plantings on Lielais Prospekts from Kuldīgas Street to the Entrance at Lielais Prospekts 39, Ventspils

This tender for reconstruction of plantings in Ventspils is generally well-structured, with clear documentation and a reasonable timeline. However, the undisclosed value and lack of explicit evaluation criteria are notable concerns.

The tender appears to comply with general procurement regulations, including the use of a proper CPV code and an open procedure. Deadlines are reasonable. No disputes are reported. The primary concern is the lack of disclosed evaluation criteria, which could impact legal compliance if not adequately addressed within the referenced documents.

The tender title and description are clear, specifying the location and nature of the work. Key requirements are outlined, and referenced documents ('Nolikums ar pielikumiem' and 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības') are expected to provide further detail. However, the absence of explicitly stated evaluation criteria within the main tender notice reduces overall clarity.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, and contract duration. The estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission. While documents are attached, the 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības' document is crucial for understanding detailed requirements and evaluation, and its accessibility might be an issue.

The tender utilizes an open procedure and e-procurement, promoting fairness. The criteria for eligibility, technical, and financial capabilities are referenced in a dedicated document, suggesting a structured approach. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag raises a significant concern regarding full document access for all potential bidders, potentially impacting fairness.

The tender specifies e-procurement, which is a positive aspect for practicality. The contract duration of 2 months is clearly stated. However, the lack of disclosed financing information and the potential for restricted document access could hinder practical participation.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, and dates are populated logically. The tender status is active, and no suspension or disputes are reported, indicating good data consistency.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation in the provided tender information. The tender is not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.