Development of a sports management system in the structural units of SIA “Latvijas Nacionālais sporta centrs”

This tender for a sports management system shows good basic structure and clear description but is significantly hampered by critical issues such as restricted document access and internal data inconsistencies, particularly regarding e-submission and comprehensive evaluation criteria.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the critical flag of 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern, potentially violating transparency and equal treatment principles essential for legal compliance.

The tender description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements are well-structured covering key areas. However, there is a contradiction regarding evaluation criteria; while 'lowest price' is mentioned, the 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag suggests a lack of comprehensive detail, leading to potential ambiguity in how offers will be fully assessed.

Basic information, financial details, timeline, and duration are provided, and requirements are outlined. Documents are listed with summaries, indicating their content is processed. However, the 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag indicates a potential gap in the full definition of how offers will be assessed, impacting overall completeness.

The estimated value is disclosed, and requirements are not explicitly tailored. However, 'Restricted document access' is a major impediment to fair competition. The contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' also raises concerns about equal access and modern procurement practices, significantly impacting fairness.

The duration and financing are clearly specified. However, the lack of direct document URLs and the contradiction regarding e-submission (if e-submission is truly absent) significantly reduce the practicality for bidders. The contract start date is also not explicitly stated.

While many key fields are populated and dates are logical, there are significant contradictions. Specifically, the tender states 'E-Procurement' but automated checks flag 'No e-submission,' and evaluation criteria are mentioned as 'lowest price' while also being flagged as 'missing.' These inconsistencies undermine reliability.

The tender does not indicate any explicit focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not identified as EU-funded, which typically encourages higher sustainability standards.