Traffic safety improvement measures on the 0.00-9.90 km section of the national main road A9 Rīga-Liepāja

This tender for road safety improvements demonstrates good clarity and legal compliance, benefiting from EU funding and e-procurement. However, its fairness and completeness are significantly hampered by restricted document access and the non-disclosure of the estimated contract value.

The tender appears to comply with standard legal requirements, including a reasonable submission period and clear procedure type. Its EU funding and WTO/GPA characteristics suggest adherence to higher international standards. No disputes or suspensions are noted. The lack of estimated value disclosure is a minor point, but not necessarily a legal non-compliance for an open procedure.

The tender description is clear, and key requirements, evaluation criteria, and performance conditions are indicated to be detailed in the accompanying documents (NOLIKUMS, Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības). The AI-extracted requirements are specific and point to the relevant document.

Most essential information, such as title, reference, organization, deadlines, duration, and location, is provided. Key documents are listed and summarized. However, the estimated value of the contract is not disclosed, which is a significant omission for a comprehensive tender.

The tender's fairness is significantly compromised by the 'Restricted document access' flag, which prevents equal and transparent access to all necessary information for potential bidders. The non-disclosure of the estimated value further reduces transparency and makes it harder for bidders to assess the opportunity fairly. While e-procurement is enabled and deadlines are reasonable, these positive aspects are overshadowed by the access restriction.

Electronic submission is supported, which enhances practicality. Financing information and contract duration are clearly specified. However, the contract start date is not provided, and the 'Restricted document access' implies that direct, publicly accessible document URLs might be missing or require specific access, hindering ease of access.

The core data fields are largely consistent, with logical dates and no reported disputes or suspensions. While automated checks flagged 'Missing evaluation criteria' and 'No e-submission,' these appear to be contradictions with other provided information (document summaries and characteristics), suggesting the tender's internal data is more consistent than the automated flags indicate. The main gap is the undisclosed estimated value, which is an omission rather than an inconsistency.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards, and the project itself (road safety improvements) has inherent social benefits. However, the provided information does not explicitly detail specific green procurement criteria, social clauses beyond the project's core aim, or innovation focus within the tender requirements or evaluation.