Real estate valuation for the needs of Sigulda Municipality

Overall, the tender documentation provides clear basic information and requirements, but restricted document access and significant data inconsistencies severely undermine transparency and fairness. Sustainability aspects are notably absent.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, assigns an appropriate CPV code, and provides a reasonable submission deadline. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag indicates a significant legal compliance issue regarding transparency and equal treatment, as bidders may not have full access to all necessary documents.

The tender's description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements are well-categorized. Evaluation criteria are explicitly stated as 'lowest price' in the document summaries and AI-extracted requirements, despite a contradictory automated flag. Performance conditions are not explicitly detailed in the provided summaries.

All basic information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, and location, is provided. Key requirements and evaluation criteria are also defined. However, 'Restricted document access' is a major completeness flaw for potential bidders.

The tender discloses its estimated value, offers a reasonable submission deadline, and specifies objective evaluation criteria ('lowest price'). E-Procurement is indicated as a characteristic, promoting equal access. Nevertheless, 'Restricted document access' is a critical fairness concern, as it prevents all bidders from having equal access to full tender information.

E-Procurement is supported, which enhances practicality. The contract duration and estimated value are clearly specified. However, the absence of a direct document URL (linked to restricted access) and an unspecified contract start date reduce the tender's overall practicality.

There are significant contradictions within the provided data, specifically between the AI-extracted requirements/document summaries and the 'ISSUES/FLAGS' / 'AUTOMATED CHECK RESULTS'. Examples include conflicting information on evaluation criteria and e-submission capabilities, which severely impacts data consistency.

The tender does not include any explicit green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, resulting in a low score for sustainability.