Real estate insurance services

This tender for real estate insurance services is generally well-structured with clear requirements, but faces significant issues regarding document accessibility and the completeness of critical submission forms, which severely impact fairness and practicality.

The tender follows an open procedure, clearly defines its type, and uses appropriate CPV codes. The requirement for an ESPD indicates compliance with EU/national regulations. Deadlines are reasonable, and no disputes are reported. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag, if it means bidders cannot access documents, poses a significant legal compliance risk regarding transparency.

The tender description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive and well-defined across various categories. Document summaries indicate that evaluation criteria are specified within the 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības' document. However, the critical '5 pielikums Finanšu piedavājums' document having 'No content extracted' creates a significant clarity issue for bidders preparing their financial offers.

Most essential information, including title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, and location, is provided. Key documents like technical specifications and a draft contract are present. However, the '5 pielikums Finanšu piedavājums' document's lack of content extraction represents a major gap in the completeness of the tender package, as it is likely a mandatory template for financial offers.

The tender benefits from an open procedure, disclosed value, reasonable submission period, and enabled e-procurement. Requirements appear generic and not tailored. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a critical concern. If bidders cannot fully access all tender documents, the principle of equal treatment and fair competition is severely compromised.

E-procurement is supported, which enhances practicality. The duration is clearly specified. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag could make it impractical for bidders to obtain necessary documents. Furthermore, the missing content for the '5 pielikums Finanšu piedavājums' document makes it practically impossible for bidders to prepare a compliant financial offer.

The core data fields, including title, reference, organization, financial details, and timeline, are consistently populated. Dates are logical, and no disputes or suspensions are reported. Minor discrepancies between automated checks and document summaries (e.g., e-submission, evaluation criteria) are reconcilable, with the document summaries providing more specific content detail.

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. Therefore, it receives a neutral score in this category.