“Research and monitoring services for mineral nutrition of forest seedlings in LVM “Seeds and Plants” nurseries”

The overall quality of this tender is moderate, with strengths in clear description and e-procurement, but significant concerns regarding restricted document access and missing information on contract value and duration.

The basic legal framework appears sound, with a clearly defined open procedure, appropriate CPV codes, and reasonable submission deadlines. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' raises significant concerns about transparency and equal treatment, which are fundamental principles of public procurement.

The tender's title and description are clear and unambiguous. AI-extracted requirements cover essential aspects like exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission details. Evaluation criteria ('lowest price') are specified. The presence of multiple document versions (e.g., '1.versija' and '2.versija') could introduce minor confusion, though 'Required: Yes/No' helps clarify.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, and deadlines is provided. However, critical information like the estimated contract value and the contract duration is missing, which significantly impacts a bidder's ability to assess the opportunity. One document summary also failed.

Fairness is severely compromised by the 'Restricted document access' flag, which creates an uneven playing field for potential bidders. The undisclosed estimated value further reduces transparency and makes it difficult for all bidders to prepare competitive offers based on a clear understanding of the contract's scale. While evaluation criteria are objective ('lowest price') and e-procurement is enabled, these are overshadowed by the access and value issues.

The tender supports e-procurement, which is a positive for practicality. However, the absence of a clear contract start date and duration makes it challenging for bidders to plan resources and commitments effectively. The lack of disclosed financing information (estimated value) also impacts practical assessment.

Dates (reveal, submission, opening) are logical and consistent, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, there are inconsistencies between the automated check results and the provided tender content (e.g., 'No evaluation criteria specified' vs. 'lowest price' in AI-extracted, 'No e-submission' vs. 'E-Procurement'). Key fields like estimated value and contract duration are also missing, impacting overall data completeness and consistency.

The tender documentation does not explicitly mention any green procurement criteria, social aspects, or a focus on innovation. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles into the procurement process.