Design and author supervision for the object: Simplified renovation of Lielsatiķi Manor Chapel

This tender for design and supervision services for Lielsatiķi Manor Chapel renovation presents a clear project scope and is EU-funded, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and a lack of clearly specified evaluation criteria, impacting fairness and transparency.

The tender adheres to basic legal requirements with a clearly defined open procedure, appropriate CPV codes, and reasonable submission deadlines. However, the restricted document access is a significant legal transparency concern, hindering mandatory disclosure and potentially violating equal treatment principles.

The project description is clear, and performance conditions refer to specific technical documents. Nevertheless, the critical absence of clearly specified evaluation criteria, exacerbated by restricted document access, severely compromises the clarity for potential bidders regarding how their offers will be assessed.

Essential information such as title, organization, value, and deadlines are provided. However, the tender lacks explicit contract duration details, and the 'Restricted document access' means crucial documentation is not fully available to bidders, making the tender incomplete in practice.

Fairness is severely compromised by the restricted document access, which prevents equal access to information for all potential bidders. The absence of clearly specified evaluation criteria further undermines transparency and objective assessment, making it difficult for bidders to prepare competitive offers. The contradiction regarding e-submission also raises concerns about equal access.

While the tender is EU-funded and provides an estimated value, practical implementation is hindered by the reported lack of e-submission support and the absence of a clear contract start date or duration. Restricted document access also creates a significant practical barrier for bidders.

Most key fields are consistently populated, and dates are logical. However, there is an inconsistency between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' issue, as well as a contradiction regarding the presence of evaluation criteria between the document summary and the overall tender flags.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards. However, it explicitly lacks specific criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, representing a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles.