Mobile communication services for Salaspils municipality institutions

This tender for mobile communication services presents a mixed quality assessment, with clear basic information and a well-defined subject, but significant concerns regarding restricted document access, undisclosed estimated value, and potentially missing or unclear evaluation criteria, which severely impact fairness and transparency.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV code correctly, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a significant concern, as it directly undermines the principles of transparency and equal access to information, which are fundamental to legal compliance in public procurement.

The tender's title and description are clear. While AI-extracted requirements provide a high-level overview, the system's flag for 'Missing evaluation criteria' is a major clarity issue. Even if mentioned in a document summary, their effective absence or inaccessibility compromises a bidder's ability to understand how proposals will be judged.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are adequately provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the flagged absence of clear evaluation criteria represents a significant gap in the tender's completeness. Restricted document access also hinders practical completeness for bidders.

Fairness is severely compromised by 'Restricted document access', which prevents equal access to essential information. The undisclosed estimated value reduces transparency, making it difficult for bidders to assess the opportunity fairly. Furthermore, the absence of clear evaluation criteria undermines the objectivity and transparency of the selection process.

The contract duration is clearly specified. However, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' creates uncertainty regarding the submission method, potentially reducing practicality. Restricted document access significantly impedes a bidder's ability to practically prepare and submit a compliant offer. The absence of a contract start date and detailed financing information also reduces practicality.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, a notable inconsistency exists between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag. Additionally, the system flagging 'Missing evaluation criteria' contradicts the document summary mentioning them, indicating a data consistency issue in presentation or accessibility.

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.