Renovation works for 7 (seven) objects in Limbaži, for adapting shelters

This tender is generally well-structured and supports e-procurement, but the undisclosed estimated value and potential restricted document access significantly reduce transparency and fairness. Detailed requirements are provided, but key information gaps and access issues are notable concerns.

Deadlines are reasonable, the procedure type is clear, and CPV codes are correctly assigned. The tender is EU Funded and WTO/GPA compliant, suggesting adherence to higher standards. However, the non-disclosure of the estimated value and the 'restricted document access' flag are notable concerns that could impact compliance with transparency principles.

The description is clear, and requirements are detailed and well-organized, being divided into seven parts with specific documents for each. Evaluation criteria, including technical aspects, price, and the most economically advantageous offer, are specified within the documents, contradicting the automated check's 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are complete. Requirements and criteria are extensively defined across multiple documents. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant piece of missing information for bidders. The 'restricted document access' flag, if it implies practical hurdles, also impacts the completeness for bidders.

E-procurement is enabled, deadlines are reasonable, and the tender is divided into parts, which promotes SME participation. However, the undisclosed estimated value and the 'restricted document access' flag are major impediments to transparency and equal access for all potential bidders. Requirements do not appear to be tailored to a specific company.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration is clearly specified. However, the lack of a specified contract start date, limited detailed financing information beyond 'EU Funded', and the 'restricted document access' flag reduce the overall practicality for bidders.

Dates are logical and consistent, and no disputes are present. Most key fields are populated. The main inconsistencies are between the automated check results (e.g., 'Missing evaluation criteria', 'No e-submission') and the AI-extracted content/characteristics, which were resolved by prioritizing the content. The missing estimated value is a data gap rather than an inconsistency.

The project is EU Funded, which often implies higher standards. However, there is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus in the provided summaries or automated checks. This indicates a missed opportunity to actively promote sustainability beyond basic compliance.