Renovation of the road overpass at 6.90 km of national main road A1 Riga (Baltezers)–Estonian border (Ainaži) and the Maza Jugla bridge at 14.10 km of national main road A4 Riga bypass (Baltezers–Saulkalne)

This tender for road and bridge renovation suffers from critical transparency issues due to undisclosed estimated value and inaccessible tender documents, severely hindering fair competition and bidder preparation despite clearly outlined requirements.

The tender outlines standard exclusion and eligibility criteria, and specifies electronic submission, which aligns with general procurement principles. However, the lack of accessible tender documents and undisclosed estimated value raise significant concerns regarding compliance with transparency obligations.

The extracted requirements provide a basic overview of what is expected from bidders regarding experience, financial standing, and submission format. However, the absence of the full tender documents means critical details, specifications, and evaluation methodologies are unavailable, making a comprehensive assessment of clarity impossible.

Based solely on the extracted requirements, key elements like mandatory exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission requirements are listed. However, the complete absence of tender documents, detailed specifications, and potentially missing contract duration or specific location details (beyond general road segments) indicates severe incompleteness from a bidder's perspective.

The tender specifies an open procedure and evaluation based on the lowest price, which generally promotes fairness. However, the critical issue of restricted document access and undisclosed estimated value creates a highly unfair environment, preventing potential bidders from properly understanding the scope, risks, and preparing competitive offers. The requirement for specific experience for both the bidder and construction manager is standard but cannot be assessed for proportionality without the full documents.

The requirement for electronic submission via EIS is practical. However, the complete lack of accessible tender documents makes it practically impossible for any bidder to prepare a compliant and competitive bid. The bid security of 5,000 EUR seems reasonable for a works contract of this nature, but its proportionality cannot be fully assessed without the estimated value.

There is a direct contradiction between the 'AUTOMATED CHECK RESULTS' stating 'No e-submission' and the 'SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS' stating 'Bids must be submitted electronically via the EIS e-procurement system.' This inconsistency needs clarification. Other extracted requirements appear consistent with each other.

No information regarding sustainability criteria, environmental considerations, or social aspects of the project is provided in the extracted requirements. This suggests a potential oversight in integrating modern procurement best practices.