Mero karnavalo eisenos ir mero eisenos dirbtuvių programos koordinavimas

This tender provides basic administrative details but is significantly hampered by critical omissions in legal requirements, clarity of evaluation criteria, and modern procurement practices. Key information for bidders is either missing or contradictory.

The tender lacks specific mandatory exclusion grounds and detailed eligibility requirements, which are fundamental legal compliance issues. The absence of specific quality evaluation criteria (beyond a percentage split) also raises legal concerns regarding transparency. The contradiction of a disclosed value being simultaneously 'classified' is problematic.

While the service description is clear, the tender suffers from a significant lack of clarity regarding how proposals will be evaluated, as specific criteria for the 60% quality component are not detailed. The absence of explicit eligibility and exclusion grounds further reduces overall clarity for potential bidders.

The tender is incomplete due to the explicit absence of detailed mandatory exclusion grounds, specific eligibility requirements, and comprehensive quality evaluation criteria. The mention of 'Divided into Parts' without further detail also indicates incompleteness.

Fairness is significantly compromised by the lack of specific evaluation criteria for the quality component, making it difficult for bidders to understand how to compete effectively. The absence of an e-submission option creates an unnecessary barrier, and the 'Value Classified: Yes' contradiction reduces transparency.

The tender's practicality is severely impacted by the absence of an electronic submission option, which is a standard and expected feature in modern public procurement. While contract dates are clear, the lack of e-submission creates an administrative burden.

A notable data inconsistency exists with the estimated value being disclosed but simultaneously marked as 'classified'. The 'Liable Person' field is empty, and the 'Missing reveal date' also indicates a gap in consistent data provision.

The tender does not indicate any focus on green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, resulting in a low score for sustainability. There is no mention of EU funding, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards.