Supply of a computed tomography scanner for cardiology

This tender for a cardiology CT scanner demonstrates good adherence to basic procurement principles but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and the critical absence of explicit evaluation criteria, impacting fairness and clarity.

The tender adheres to basic legal requirements with a reasonable submission period (31 days), clear procedure type (open), and an appropriate CPV code. It is EU-funded and subject to WTO/GPA, indicating broader compliance. However, 'Restricted document access' and the failed summary for the 'Nolikums' (Regulations) document raise concerns about full transparency and the ability for bidders to verify complete legal compliance.

The tender's description and AI-extracted requirements are generally clear and well-categorized. However, the critical absence of specified evaluation criteria makes it difficult for bidders to understand how their offers will be judged. Additionally, specific mandatory exclusion grounds are not detailed in the provided summaries, requiring full document access for clarity.

Basic information such as title, organization, value, deadlines, and duration are comprehensively provided. However, the tender is incomplete due to the explicit absence of evaluation criteria and the failed summary for the crucial 'Nolikums' document, which likely contains essential details. Mandatory exclusion grounds are also not fully detailed.

Fairness is severely compromised by 'Restricted document access' and the critical 'Missing evaluation criteria'. Bidders cannot prepare competitive offers or understand the assessment process without full transparency and clear evaluation rules. While the value is disclosed and the deadline is reasonable, these fundamental flaws undermine equal opportunity.

Electronic submission is indicated by 'E-Procurement' and 'Elektronisko iepirkumu sistēma' as the opening place, and financing details (EU Funded, estimated value) and contract duration are clear. However, 'Restricted document access' significantly hinders practicality for potential bidders. The absence of a specific contract start date also adds a minor practical ambiguity.

The tender exhibits good data consistency with most key fields populated, logical dates, and no reported disputes or suspensions. A minor inconsistency is the '0' prefix in the CPV code, and a contradiction regarding e-submission (resolved by prioritizing explicit characteristics and opening place).

Despite being EU-funded, the tender explicitly lacks any specified green procurement, social, or innovation criteria. This indicates a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability objectives into the procurement process.