Procurement of C-arm X-ray equipment, autoclave, ultrasonography equipment, and X-ray protective walls

This tender for medical equipment suffers from a critical lack of publicly accessible documentation and evaluation criteria, hindering a comprehensive assessment of its quality and fairness despite clearly stated basic requirements.

The tender outlines standard eligibility and technical requirements, including manufacturer authorizations and CE marking, which are generally compliant. However, the absence of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds and, critically, evaluation criteria in the publicly available information raises concerns regarding transparency and adherence to full procurement principles.

The *extracted* requirements are clearly stated and unambiguous regarding what bidders need to submit. However, the overall clarity of the procurement process is severely compromised by the complete lack of access to the full tender documents.

The tender is critically incomplete from a public access perspective, as no documents are attached, and no full content is available. Key information such as detailed technical specifications, full mandatory exclusion grounds, and especially evaluation criteria are missing, making it impossible for potential bidders to fully understand the scope and how proposals will be judged.

The requirement for manufacturer's authorization for sales, service, installation, maintenance, and repair rights in Latvia, while common for specialized medical equipment, can potentially limit competition to a few established distributors. The complete absence of evaluation criteria makes it impossible to assess the fairness and objectivity of the selection process.

The 80-day (or 3-month) delivery timeframe for complex medical equipment like C-arm X-ray machines and autoclaves is demanding but potentially achievable for experienced suppliers. The 10% contract performance guarantee is a standard and practical requirement. The lack of e-submission might add administrative burden.

The extracted information shows consistency between the stated contract duration (3 months) and the delivery commitment (80 days), which are roughly equivalent. No other inconsistencies are apparent in the provided summary.

The automated check explicitly flags 'Not green procurement,' indicating a lack of consideration for environmental or social sustainability criteria within the tender, which is a missed opportunity for responsible procurement.