Creation of public infrastructure - a 3x3 basketball court in Tārgale

This tender for a 3x3 basketball court in Tārgale demonstrates good clarity in its requirements and evaluation criteria, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and undisclosed estimated value, raising serious concerns about fairness and legal compliance.

While the procedure type, CPV code, and submission deadline are compliant, the 'Restricted document access' is a major legal compliance issue, undermining transparency principles. The undisclosed estimated value also falls short of best practices for EU-funded open procedures.

The project description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements comprehensively outline exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission criteria, referencing specific documents. The evaluation criterion of 'lowest price' is explicitly stated.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and 'Restricted document access' means that the full content essential for a complete understanding is not publicly available, significantly impacting completeness.

Fairness is severely compromised by 'Restricted document access' and the undisclosed estimated value, which prevent equal and informed participation. The contradiction regarding e-submission also introduces uncertainty for bidders, although the 'lowest price' criterion is objective.

The practicality is reduced by the 'Restricted document access' and the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag, creating ambiguity for bidders. While duration is clear, the lack of a direct document URL and potential e-submission issues are practical hurdles.

There are significant inconsistencies, notably the contradiction between the 'E-Procurement' characteristic and the 'No e-submission' flag, and between 'Documents available' and 'Restricted document access'. The 'Missing evaluation criteria' flag is contradicted by the AI summary, which explicitly states 'lowest price'.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards, but it lacks explicit criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus, indicating a missed opportunity to integrate sustainability principles.