Achat d'électricité

This tender for electricity procurement from Cēsu Klīnika is generally well-structured but has some areas for improvement, particularly regarding document access and evaluation criteria clarity. Overall, it is a good quality tender with reasonable requirements.

The tender appears to comply with general procurement regulations, indicated by the use of CPV codes, a clear procedure, and no reported disputes. The deadlines provided are reasonable and the tender is active. The WTO/GPA characteristic suggests adherence to international standards.

The core requirements for the procurement of electricity are stated, and the tender documents are described. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria leaves a significant gap in understanding how bids will be assessed, impacting overall clarity.

Most essential information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, and duration are present. However, the reliance on external documents for key requirements (exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, submission) reduces the completeness of the primary tender notice. Three tender documents are attached.

The procedure is open, and the estimated value is disclosed. The criteria are stated to be objective within the documents. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag raises a significant fairness concern, potentially limiting the ability of all interested parties to fully assess the tender.

The tender mentions 'E-Procurement' and 'Elektronisko iepirkumu sistēma' as the opening place, implying e-submission. However, the 'No e-submission' flag contradicts this, creating ambiguity. The contract start date is not explicitly mentioned, and financing information is absent.

Key fields are populated, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. The dates provided (Reveal Date, Submission Deadline, Opening Date) are logically sequenced. The tender is active and has a valid duration.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of specific sustainability considerations within the procurement process.