Conception, construction et supervision d'auteur de l'accessibilité environnementale du centre de santé « Biķernieki »

This tender for environmental accessibility design and construction is generally well-structured, with clear documentation and a reasonable timeline. However, it lacks explicit evaluation criteria and has potential issues with document access, impacting overall fairness and practicality.

The tender appears to comply with general procurement regulations, including the use of a proper CPV code and an active status. Deadlines are reasonable, and the procedure is open. No disputes are noted. The mention of EU funding suggests adherence to relevant directives.

The tender title and description are clear. Multiple documents detail technical specifications, requirements, and contract drafts, contributing to clarity. However, the absence of explicitly stated evaluation criteria leaves a gap in understanding how bids will be assessed.

Most basic information is present, including estimated value, duration, and deadlines. A significant number of supporting documents are provided, covering technical aspects, contract drafts, and regulations. However, the lack of explicit financial requirements in the summary and the potential for restricted document access could hinder completeness for bidders.

The tender is an open competition with disclosed value and uses e-procurement, which are positive fairness indicators. The criteria for exclusion and eligibility are outlined. However, the 'Issues: Restricted document access' flag significantly impacts fairness, as potential bidders may not have full access to all necessary information. The lack of specified evaluation criteria also raises concerns about objective assessment.

The tender utilizes e-procurement, which is a practical aspect. The contract duration and tender validity are specified. However, the 'Issues: No e-submission' flag (contradicting 'E-Procurement' characteristic) and potential restricted document access reduce practicality. The absence of explicit financing information also poses a minor challenge.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, value, and deadlines are populated. The dates provided (Reveal, Submission, Opening) are logically sequenced. There are no reported suspensions or disputes, indicating good data consistency.

The tender is identified as 'EU Funded', which often implies adherence to certain environmental and social standards. However, there are no explicit mentions of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the provided information, leading to a moderate score in this category.