Framework agreement for expert assessments of construction projects on properties owned by Madona Municipality

This tender for construction project expertises is generally well-structured with clear basic information, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and some ambiguity regarding evaluation criteria, impacting fairness and practicality.

The tender defines the procedure and CPV codes correctly, and the timeline is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern for legal compliance regarding transparency and equal treatment, potentially hindering bidders' ability to comply with all requirements.

The tender description and AI-extracted requirements are clear in their categories. Performance conditions refer to specific documents. However, the flag 'Missing evaluation criteria' suggests that while mentioned in a document summary, they are not explicitly or easily accessible in the main tender overview, reducing overall clarity.

All essential metadata such as title, reference, organization, value, duration, and location are provided. However, the 'Restricted document access' means the full tender package is not completely available to potential bidders, which is a critical gap.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the characteristic 'E-Procurement' suggests equal access through electronic means. However, 'Restricted document access' severely compromises fairness by creating an uneven playing field. The lack of explicitly listed evaluation criteria also impacts transparency.

Electronic submission is implied by 'E-Procurement' and 'Elektronisko iepirkumu sistēma'. Contract duration and financing are clear. Nevertheless, 'Restricted document access' presents a major practical barrier for bidders to prepare and submit a compliant offer.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There are no disputes or suspensions. However, inconsistencies exist between the document summaries (e.g., evaluation criteria mentioned) and automated flags (e.g., missing evaluation criteria), indicating some internal data presentation discrepancies.

The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.