Supply of medical devices for the centralized sterilization department

This tender for medical devices demonstrates good foundational information and a clear award criterion, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and internal data inconsistencies regarding e-submission and evaluation criteria details.

The tender defines the procedure type, assigns an appropriate CPV code, and indicates no disputes. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a significant concern for transparency and compliance with public procurement principles.

The tender description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements are well-structured. The award criterion of 'lowest price' is explicitly stated, providing clarity on the primary evaluation method. However, the flag regarding 'missing evaluation criteria' suggests potential lack of detailed sub-criteria or a comprehensive evaluation methodology.

Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, and classification, is provided. Requirements and criteria are stated to be defined in the attached documents. However, 'Restricted document access' severely impacts the practical completeness for potential bidders, as they cannot fully review the tender documentation.

The estimated value is disclosed, and the submission deadline is reasonable. The 'lowest price' award criterion is objective and transparent. However, 'Restricted document access' is a critical fairness issue, as it prevents equal and full access to essential tender information for all potential bidders.

The tender specifies 'E-Procurement' and 'Elektronisko iepirkumu sistēma' as the opening place, suggesting electronic submission is supported. The contract duration is clearly specified. However, the 'Restricted document access' makes it impractical for bidders to prepare a comprehensive offer, and the 'No e-submission' flag from automated checks contradicts the 'E-Procurement' characteristic, creating uncertainty.

Key fields are populated, and dates are logical. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, significant contradictions exist, such as 'Missing evaluation criteria' versus the stated 'lowest price' award criterion, and 'E-Procurement' characteristic versus the 'No e-submission' flag, which reduce overall data consistency.

The tender does not include any specific requirements or mentions related to green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is also not indicated as EU-funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.