Acquisition of simulation and rehabilitation room equipment within the project “Modernization of Daugavpils University Study Environment, Phase 2”

This tender for simulation and rehabilitation equipment is generally well-structured with clear basic information and reasonable timelines, but faces significant concerns regarding document accessibility and explicit sustainability criteria.

The tender defines the procedure type, assigns an appropriate CPV code, and provides reasonable deadlines. It is EU-funded and adheres to WTO/GPA principles, suggesting compliance with higher standards. No disputes or suspensions are noted. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag raises a potential concern regarding transparency and full legal compliance if documents are not readily available.

The tender description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements cover essential aspects like exclusion grounds, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission details. Performance conditions refer to specific technical specifications and contract drafts. While Document 3 summary indicates evaluation criteria are present, the 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag suggests they might not be clearly or easily discoverable, impacting overall clarity.

All basic information, including title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, duration, CPV, and location, is provided. Three documents are listed with summaries, indicating that requirements and criteria are defined within them. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag significantly impacts the practical completeness for potential bidders, as they may not be able to access all necessary information.

The tender discloses the estimated value, provides reasonable deadlines for preparation, and supports e-procurement, promoting equal access. There is no indication that requirements are tailored to a specific company. While Document 3 summary states evaluation criteria exist, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a major concern for fairness, as it can prevent equal access to critical tender information.

Electronic submission is supported, and financing information (EU Funded, estimated value) and contract duration are clearly specified. However, an explicit contract start date is not provided. The 'Restricted document access' flag could also hinder the practical application for bidders.

Key fields are consistently populated, and dates are logical and sequential. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. While some automated flags contradict explicit tender characteristics (e.g., e-submission vs. no e-submission), the tender's internal data appears largely consistent.

The project is EU-funded, which typically implies adherence to higher standards, including sustainability. However, the tender explicitly lacks specific green procurement, social, or innovation criteria, indicating a missed opportunity to integrate these aspects more directly.