Bus rental with driver for the needs of Jūrmala Sports School

This tender is clear in its basic information and requirements are well-documented, but significant concerns regarding restricted document access and undisclosed estimated value severely impact fairness and transparency.

The tender generally adheres to procedural requirements with a reasonable submission deadline and clear procedure type. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern regarding transparency and equal treatment, potentially impacting legal compliance. The estimated value is not disclosed, which, while not always a legal breach, is not best practice.

The tender description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements, supported by document summaries, indicate well-defined eligibility, technical, financial, and submission criteria. The evaluation method (lowest price) is explicitly stated.

Basic information, deadlines, and duration are provided, and key requirements are outlined in the attached documents. However, the estimated contract value is not disclosed, and the 'Restricted document access' flag suggests that full documentation might not be readily available to all potential bidders, impacting overall completeness from a bidder's perspective.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the 'Restricted document access' flag, which hinders equal opportunity for all potential bidders. The non-disclosure of the estimated value also reduces transparency. Furthermore, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' creates uncertainty regarding equal access to the submission process.

While the duration is clear, the practicality for bidders is reduced by the 'Restricted document access' and the potential lack of e-submission functionality, despite the 'E-Procurement' characteristic. The absence of an estimated value also makes financial planning and bid assessment more challenging for potential suppliers.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. However, there is a notable inconsistency between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag. The 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag is contradicted by the document summaries, indicating a potential data processing inconsistency.

The tender does not include any specific criteria or considerations related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, nor is it indicated as EU-funded, which typically encourages higher sustainability standards.