Construction works of the car parking lot at Draugystės g. 18, Marijampolė

This tender for parking lot construction in Marijampolė is generally well-structured, with clear basic information and available documents. However, it lacks specific details on evaluation criteria and submission methods, impacting practicality and potentially fairness.

The tender adheres to basic legal requirements with a clear CPV code and organization. Deadlines appear reasonable given the estimated value and contract duration. No disputes are reported. The procedure is open, which is standard.

The description of the procurement object is clear. Key documents like 'Pirkimo sąlygos' (Terms and Conditions) and 'Projektas' (Project) are available, suggesting documented requirements. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria is a significant clarity gap.

Most basic information is present, including estimated value, contract duration, and submission deadline. Seven tender documents are listed, with several containing summaries. However, the lack of explicit eligibility, technical, and financial requirements within the provided AI-extracted sections suggests these might be detailed only within the attached documents, which is not ideal for initial assessment.

The tender is an open procedure, and the estimated value is disclosed. The availability of documents and the use of ESPD contribute to fairness. However, the lack of specified evaluation criteria could lead to subjective assessments, and the absence of explicit mention of e-submission (though 'E-Procurement' is listed as a characteristic) raises minor concerns.

The tender is marked as 'E-Procurement', but the specific e-submission mechanism is not detailed. The contract start date is not specified. While documents are available, the lack of explicit requirements in the AI-extracted sections means bidders must thoroughly review all attached documents to understand submission requirements.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are populated. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. Dates are logical and consistent.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the provided tender information. The tender is not indicated as EU funded.