Design and author supervision services for construction objects: Reconstruction of the school building and simplified renovation of the building facade

This tender for design and author supervision services demonstrates good overall quality with clear basic information and adherence to EU/WTO standards. However, concerns regarding document accessibility and the explicit lack of sustainability criteria warrant attention.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, uses appropriate CPV codes, and indicates EU funding and WTO/GPA compliance, suggesting adherence to higher legal standards. Deadlines are reasonable. The 'Restricted document access' flag is a potential concern for transparency, but given the presence of document summaries, it is interpreted as an AI parsing limitation rather than a complete block for bidders.

The tender description is clear, and performance conditions are well-referenced. AI-extracted requirements are structured and point to detailed specifications in the full documents. While an automated flag indicated missing evaluation criteria, document summaries explicitly state their inclusion, suggesting clarity within the full tender documents.

All essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, financial details, timeline, and location, is provided. Requirements and evaluation criteria are referenced to be defined in the attached documents, which are summarized.

The tender promotes fairness through e-procurement, disclosed value, and reasonable submission deadlines. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a significant concern, as it could potentially hinder equal access to information for all bidders, impacting transparency and fairness.

Electronic submission is supported, and financing information and contract duration are clearly specified. The lack of a direct document URL in the basic information and the 'Restricted document access' flag could present minor practical hurdles for some bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. However, there is a notable inconsistency between the automated check flagging 'No evaluation criteria specified' and the document summaries explicitly stating the inclusion of evaluation criteria.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards, but it explicitly lacks specific criteria for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus, as identified by the automated checks.