Fountain maintenance in Ventspils state city in 2026, 2027, and 2028

This tender for fountain maintenance in Ventspils demonstrates good clarity and legal compliance in its core structure, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access, undisclosed estimated value, and a complete lack of sustainability considerations.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, uses an appropriate CPV code, and specifies reasonable submission timelines. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern for compliance with transparency and equal treatment principles, and the undisclosed estimated value also impacts full disclosure requirements.

The tender's title, description, and AI-extracted requirements are clear and unambiguous. Performance conditions are appropriately referenced. While an initial flag indicated missing evaluation criteria, Document 3's summary clarifies that criteria are based on the lowest price, resolving this ambiguity.

The tender provides all essential basic information, including organization, reference, title, location, deadlines, and duration. Key requirements and evaluation criteria are defined across the documents. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and restricted document access may hinder bidders from obtaining all necessary information.

The tender's requirements appear generic, and the evaluation criteria (lowest price without VAT) are objective and transparent. E-procurement is indicated, suggesting equal access to the submission process. However, 'Restricted document access' is a critical impediment to fairness, and the undisclosed estimated value limits bidders' ability to assess the opportunity equitably.

Electronic submission is likely supported, enhancing practicality. The contract duration is clearly specified. However, the lack of an explicit contract start date, undisclosed financing information (estimated value), and 'Restricted document access' reduce the overall practicality for potential bidders.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. However, contradictions exist regarding the specification of evaluation criteria (Issues/Flags vs. Document 3 summary) and e-submission capabilities (Characteristics vs. Automated Check Results), and the estimated value is missing.

The tender shows no explicit integration of green procurement principles, social aspects, or an innovation focus. It is also not EU-funded, which often encourages higher sustainability standards. This indicates a complete absence of sustainability considerations.