Security services

This tender for security services presents significant concerns regarding fairness and data consistency due to restricted document access, undisclosed value, and contradictory information, despite clear basic details and reasonable deadlines.

The tender defines the procedure type and CPV codes clearly, and the submission deadline provides sufficient time. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and there is a flag for restricted document access, which impacts transparency and full compliance with disclosure requirements. No disputes or suspensions are reported.

The tender description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements are well-defined and understandable. Performance conditions refer to specific technical specifications and contract drafts. While the 'ISSUES/FLAGS' section indicates 'No evaluation criteria specified', the document summaries for 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības' explicitly state they contain 'detailed evaluation criteria for submitted offers'. Assuming these criteria are indeed present within the documents, the clarity of requirements is generally good.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, and location is provided. Deadlines and contract duration are specified. However, the estimated value of the procurement is not disclosed, which is a significant omission. While documents are listed, the 'Restricted document access' flag indicates that full content is not readily available, impacting the overall completeness from a bidder's perspective.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the 'Restricted document access' and the non-disclosure of the estimated value, preventing bidders from fully understanding the scope and preparing competitive offers. The 'ISSUES/FLAGS' explicitly states 'No evaluation criteria specified', which, if true, severely undermines transparency and objectivity in evaluation. Even if criteria exist within restricted documents, their inaccessibility makes the process unfair. The contradiction between 'E-Procurement' and 'No e-submission' also creates uncertainty regarding equal access to the submission process. There is no indication of requirements being tailored to a specific company.

The tender specifies a clear duration. However, the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' being a characteristic and 'No e-submission' being an issue raises concerns about the practical submission process. A contract start date is not explicitly provided, and detailed financing information is absent beyond the undisclosed estimated value. Document URLs are not directly provided, and access is restricted.

Key dates are logical, and no disputes or suspensions are reported. However, there are notable inconsistencies within the provided tender information. Specifically, the 'E-Procurement' characteristic contradicts the 'No e-submission' issue. The 'ISSUES/FLAGS' stating 'No evaluation criteria specified' contradicts the document summaries that mention 'detailed evaluation criteria'. Furthermore, 'Documents available' is listed as a strength, while 'Restricted document access' is flagged as an issue, indicating an inconsistency in accessibility.

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