Greideriavimo paslaugos Saulkrasti savivaldybėje 2026 m.

This tender for road grading services in Saulkrasti municipality is generally well-structured, with clear documentation and a reasonable timeline. However, the lack of disclosed financial value and specific evaluation criteria, along with potential document access restrictions, slightly impacts its overall quality.

The tender adheres to general legal requirements, including a proper CPV code and a clear procedure. Deadlines appear reasonable. The absence of disclosed disputes and the active status contribute positively. However, the lack of explicit mention of regulatory compliance beyond the 'Nolikums' document and the potential for restricted document access could be a minor concern.

The description of services is clear, and the requirements are documented in attached files ('Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības, 1.versija', 'Nolikums', 'Darbu žurnāls Paraugs'). The list of roads is also provided. The main area for improvement is the lack of specified evaluation criteria, which impacts the clarity of how bids will be assessed.

Most basic information is present, including the title, reference, organization, and type of service. Deadlines and the duration of the contract (implied by '2026 gadā') are specified. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission for completeness.

The tender is conducted via e-procurement, which promotes fairness. The criteria for eligibility and technical capability are outlined. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and there are concerns about restricted document access, which could hinder full document access for all potential bidders.

The tender is active and has a clear submission deadline. It is an e-procurement process. However, the lack of explicit financing information and the absence of a specified contract start date (beyond the year 2026) reduce its practicality.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, and deadlines are populated. The dates are logical, and there are no reported disputes or suspensions. The CPV code is provided. The consistency is high.

There is no explicit mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation within the provided tender information. This suggests a lack of focus on sustainability criteria.