Provision of EXPO Event Services

This tender exhibits significant transparency and fairness concerns due to restricted document access and undisclosed estimated value, despite having a clear description and reasonable deadlines. Several data inconsistencies also hinder its overall quality.

The tender correctly defines the procedure type and CPV codes, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, 'Restricted document access' is a significant transparency issue, potentially hindering compliance with public procurement principles. The lack of publicly specified evaluation criteria, despite being mentioned in document summaries, also raises concerns about full disclosure.

The tender title and description are clear. AI-extracted requirements indicate that detailed criteria (exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, submission, evaluation) are outlined within the 'Iepirkuma nolikums' and 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības' documents. However, the restricted access to these documents prevents a full assessment of their internal clarity.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission. Furthermore, while documents are listed, their restricted access means the full tender package is not publicly complete. The flag 'Missing evaluation criteria' also points to a completeness gap in the publicly available information.

This category is significantly impacted by 'Restricted document access' and the 'Value not disclosed,' which severely limit fair competition and transparency. The contradiction regarding e-submission ('E-Procurement' characteristic vs. 'No e-submission' flag) is also a concern; if e-submission is truly unavailable, it creates an unnecessary barrier. The lack of publicly available evaluation criteria further reduces transparency.

The tender specifies a contract duration and indicates EU funding. However, the 'No e-submission' flag, if accurate, significantly reduces practicality for bidders. The lack of a direct document URL and an unspecified contract start date also contribute to minor practical inconveniences.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there are notable inconsistencies: the 'E-Procurement' characteristic contradicts the 'No e-submission' flag, and the 'No evaluation criteria specified' flag contradicts the document summary stating that evaluation criteria are included in the technical specification. These internal contradictions reduce overall data reliability.

The tender is flagged for not including green procurement, social criteria, or innovation focus. While it is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards, the explicit absence of these sustainability aspects results in a low score for this category.