Installation d'un raccordement au système centralisé d'approvisionnement en eau et d'assainissement pour la propriété située rue Jūrkalnes 35, à Riga

This tender for water and sewage system connection is active and presents standard information, but lacks explicit evaluation criteria and has potential access restrictions for documents.

The tender appears compliant with general procurement regulations. Deadlines are reasonable, and it uses open procedure. The CPV code is specified, and there is no mention of disputes. However, the absence of explicitly stated evaluation criteria could be a minor procedural gap.

The description of the works is clear, and basic requirements are outlined. Essential information like estimated value, duration, and deadlines are present. The AI-extracted requirements hint at further details within the tender documents, which is standard practice.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, and timelines. Three tender documents are indicated, suggesting the necessary details are available. However, the AI notes that 'Atklāta konkursa nolikums' (Open Competition Regulation) has no extracted content, which could be a point of incompleteness if this is a crucial document.

The tender is an open procedure with disclosed value and uses e-procurement. The AI flags 'Restricted document access', which is a significant concern for fairness, potentially limiting bidder participation. Objective criteria are not explicitly specified in the provided extract.

The tender utilizes e-procurement, which is practical. The contract duration is specified. However, the AI indicates 'No e-submission', which contradicts the e-procurement characteristic and would significantly impact practicality if true. Financing information is not detailed.

Key fields like title, reference, dates, and value are populated logically. There are no reported suspensions or disputes. Dates are consistent and sequential. The tender is active with a future deadline and opening date.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. The tender does not indicate EU funding. This suggests a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.