Simplified renovation of two wards at the Rehabilitation Center "Tērvete"

This tender suffers from a critical lack of accessible documentation, making a full and fair assessment impossible, despite some clearly stated procedural requirements. The fundamental absence of tender documents severely undermines transparency and competition.

The tender outlines standard requirements such as qualification criteria and electronic submission. However, the complete absence of accessible tender documents is a significant legal and procedural flaw, preventing bidders from understanding their obligations. The broad CPV code (7) is also problematic for a works contract.

While some requirements (e.g., mandatory site visit, lowest price evaluation, electronic submission) are clearly stated, the overall clarity is severely hampered by the lack of accessible tender documents. Bidders cannot understand the full scope, detailed technical specifications, or contractual terms.

The tender summary lists various requirements, but the complete set of tender documents (technical specifications, draft contract, full qualification criteria) is missing. This makes the tender fundamentally incomplete for potential bidders.

The critical lack of accessible documents creates an inherently unfair bidding environment, as only those with prior knowledge or privileged access could potentially prepare a compliant offer. The mandatory site visit, while generally good, is unfair and impractical if essential documents are unavailable.

The tender is highly impractical for bidders due to the absence of essential documentation. A mandatory site visit without access to technical specifications or a draft contract is inefficient and potentially useless. While electronic submission is practical, it's only effective if there's a complete tender package to respond to.

There are significant contradictions between the extracted requirements and the automated check results, indicating inconsistencies in the provided data or its interpretation.

The tender explicitly mentions 'Adhere to Green Public Procurement (GPP) requirements for lighting,' which is a positive step towards sustainability. However, without accessible documents, the depth and enforceability of these requirements cannot be assessed. The automated check's 'Not green procurement' flag contradicts this positive aspect.