Ikimokyklinės ugdymo įstaigos „Mazulītis“ supaprastintų patalpų grupių (sanitariniai mazgai ir indų plovimo vietos) renovacija Liepojoje, Dunikos g. 17 – 2-asis etapas

This tender for renovation works at PII 'Mazulītis' is generally well-structured, with clear documentation and a reasonable timeline. However, the undisclosed estimated value and lack of explicit evaluation criteria are notable concerns.

The tender adheres to standard open procedure requirements, including a clear CPV code and a reasonable submission deadline. The absence of reported disputes or suspensions contributes positively. However, the lack of explicitly stated evaluation criteria could be a minor compliance concern if not implicitly covered within the provided documents.

The description of the works is clear, and the requirements are documented within the provided 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības, 1.versija' and 'Pielikumi' documents. The conditions for performance are referenced to technical specifications and draft contract.

Most basic information is present, including title, reference, organization, and deadlines. The contract duration is specified. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which impacts the completeness of financial information.

The tender is conducted via e-procurement, which promotes fairness. The criteria for exclusion and eligibility are outlined. However, the 'Issues: Restricted document access' flag suggests potential limitations in full document access for all parties, which could impact fairness. The absence of disclosed evaluation criteria also raises questions about transparency.

The tender is active and has a clear submission deadline. E-procurement is indicated. However, the 'Issues: No e-submission' flag suggests that the submission process might not be fully electronic, which could reduce practicality. Financing information is not explicitly detailed.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, and deadlines are populated. The dates for reveal, submission, and opening are logically sequenced. There are no reported disputes or suspensions, indicating good data consistency.

The tender does not explicitly mention any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is not indicated as EU funded. This suggests a lack of emphasis on sustainability criteria.