Fountain maintenance and upkeep works at Ausekļa Street 6 and Baznīcas Street 2, Sigulda

This tender is generally well-structured and clear, but a significant concern is the restricted document access, which undermines transparency and fairness. While most basic information is provided, critical inconsistencies and a lack of sustainability focus are noted.

The tender defines an open procedure with a reasonable submission deadline and no reported disputes. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a significant legal compliance issue regarding transparency and equal access to information, preventing a higher score. The CPV code 50800000 is acceptable but could be more specific for fountain maintenance.

The tender's title and description are clear. AI-extracted requirements clearly reference specific documents for detailed exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission criteria. The evaluation criterion of 'lowest price' is explicitly stated, despite an automated flag to the contrary. However, the restricted document access prevents a full assessment of the detailed clarity.

All essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and location, is provided. Requirements and evaluation criteria are defined and referenced. However, the 'Restricted document access' significantly compromises the effective completeness for potential bidders, as they cannot fully access all necessary documentation.

The estimated value is disclosed, the submission deadline is reasonable, and the 'lowest price' evaluation criterion is objective and transparent. E-Procurement is indicated, promoting equal access. Nevertheless, the 'Restricted document access' is a critical flaw that severely impacts fairness by creating an unequal playing field for bidders.

The tender indicates 'E-Procurement', suggesting electronic submission is supported, which is practical. The contract duration is clearly specified. However, the 'Restricted document access' and the absence of a direct, publicly accessible document URL pose significant practical barriers for bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, inconsistencies exist between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag, and between the stated 'lowest price' evaluation and the 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag in automated checks.

The tender does not explicitly incorporate any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.