Reconstruction of the bridge over the Sidabra River on the A12 Riga–Šiauliai–Tauragė–Kaliningrad highway, km 12.810

This tender for bridge reconstruction is generally well-structured with a clear CPV code and numerous supporting documents. However, the estimated value is undisclosed, and specific evaluation criteria are not explicitly detailed in the provided summary, impacting completeness and clarity.

The tender adheres to EU procurement directives (2014/24/ES) and uses a proper CPV code. The procedure is open. While deadlines are present, the opening date is immediately after the submission deadline, which is standard but could be tighter. No disputes are indicated. The primary concern is the lack of explicit mention of regulatory compliance beyond the directive code.

The title and description are clear. A significant number of documents are provided, suggesting detailed technical specifications. However, the AI-extracted requirements section is empty, and the 'Pasiūlymų vertinimo kriterijai' (evaluation criteria) document is listed but its content isn't summarized, leaving ambiguity on how proposals will be assessed beyond price-quality ratio.

Most basic information is present, including the organization, reference, title, CPV, and contract duration. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission for potential bidders. While many documents are attached, the lack of summarized evaluation criteria impacts overall completeness.

The tender is open and uses e-procurement, promoting accessibility. The value is not disclosed, which can be a fairness concern as it limits bidders' ability to gauge the project's scale. However, there are no obvious requirements tailored to specific companies, and the criteria are stated to be price-quality ratio, which is generally objective.

The tender utilizes e-procurement, which is a positive aspect. The contract duration is specified. However, the 'contract start date' is not explicitly mentioned, and financing information is absent. The submission deadline is relatively short given the complexity of bridge reconstruction, which could be a practical challenge.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, CPV, and deadlines are populated. The tender status is 'active', and there are no indications of suspension or disputes. Dates are logically presented, with the opening date following the submission deadline.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation in the provided tender information. The tender is not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.