Servicing of Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS) for the needs of Riga Technical University

This tender for UPS maintenance services exhibits significant deficiencies in transparency and completeness, primarily due to restricted document access and the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria, which severely impacts fairness and clarity for potential bidders.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes correctly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, restricted document access and the critical absence of evaluation criteria are significant compliance issues, undermining principles of transparency and equal treatment in public procurement.

While the service description is clear and requirements are categorized, the fundamental absence of specified evaluation criteria makes it impossible for bidders to understand how their offers will be judged. This is a major clarity flaw, hindering the preparation of competitive bids.

Basic information, financial details, and duration are provided, and documents are listed. However, the critical omission of evaluation criteria renders the tender incomplete, as bidders lack essential information to formulate a fully compliant and competitive proposal.

Restricted document access and the complete lack of evaluation criteria are severe fairness issues, preventing objective and transparent assessment of bids and creating potential for bias. The contradiction regarding e-submission also raises concerns about equal access for all bidders.

The contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' creates a significant practical hurdle for bidders. Restricted document access further complicates the process of obtaining necessary information. The absence of a contract start date also reduces planning certainty.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. The primary inconsistency lies in the conflicting information regarding e-procurement, where the tender is characterized as 'E-Procurement' but flagged for 'No e-submission'.

The tender shows no indication of incorporating green procurement principles, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.