Acquisition of a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer

This tender for a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer demonstrates good foundational information but is severely hampered by restricted document access, which critically undermines fairness and legal compliance.

The tender defines the procedure type, assigns an appropriate CPV code, and indicates no disputes. The 16-day submission period is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a significant legal compliance issue for an open tender, violating principles of transparency and equal treatment.

The tender description is clear, and requirements are structured by referring to specific documents ('Nolikums un tā pielikumi', 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības'). While the automated check flags 'Missing evaluation criteria', the document summaries indicate these are detailed within the attached files, suggesting good clarity if accessible.

Most basic information, including title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, and location, is provided. Requirements and criteria are indicated to be defined in the attached documents. However, 'Restricted document access' fundamentally compromises the completeness of the tender for potential bidders.

The tender value is disclosed, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, 'Restricted document access' is a critical fairness issue, preventing equal access to essential information and undermining transparency. This is the most significant concern for fairness.

The tender specifies EU funding and a clear contract duration. E-procurement is indicated by a characteristic and opening place, despite a contradictory automated flag. However, the 'Restricted document access' makes it impractical for bidders to prepare and submit a compliant proposal.

Most key fields are populated and consistent, with logical dates and no reported disputes. However, there are contradictions regarding e-submission functionality and the presence of evaluation criteria. The 'Restricted document access' also represents a fundamental inconsistency with an 'open' procurement procedure.

The project is EU-funded and aims to promote innovation, which are positive aspects. However, the tender documentation does not explicitly include green procurement, social, or specific innovation criteria for the procurement itself, as indicated by automated checks.