Przebudowa obu jezdni autostrady A6 Ryga–Daugavpils–Krāslava–granica Białorusi (Patarnieki) (Ikšķile) od km 28,00 do 29,97, działania redukujące hałas, przebudowa tunelu pieszego, budowa ścieżki pieszo-rowerowej

This tender for highway reconstruction is generally well-structured with clear documentation, but lacks specific evaluation criteria and has restricted document access, impacting fairness and practicality.

The tender adheres to open procedure and provides a CPV code. Deadlines appear reasonable within the context of the tender validity. Regulatory compliance is assumed given the organization and EU funding context. No explicit disputes are noted.

The description of the works is detailed, and the required documents (technical specification, tender regulations) are indicated. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria makes the assessment process less clear.

Basic information such as title, reference, organization, and deadlines are present. The contract duration and tender validity are specified. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the AI-extracted requirements section indicates missing specific details on exclusion, eligibility, technical, financial, and submission requirements, suggesting these might be detailed within the attached documents but not summarized here.

The tender is an open procedure, and the use of e-procurement is noted. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag raises concerns about full document accessibility for all potential bidders. The lack of disclosed evaluation criteria also impacts fairness.

The tender is EU funded and uses e-procurement, which are positive. However, the 'No e-submission' flag (contradictory to e-procurement characteristic, likely meaning direct e-submission portal not explicitly linked) and 'Restricted document access' hinder practical application. The contract start date is not explicitly mentioned, only duration.

Key fields like title, reference, organization, and dates are populated. The tender is active, and no suspension or disputes are noted. Dates appear logically sequenced.

The tender is EU funded and mentions a specific EU program related to sustainable mobility and cycle infrastructure development. However, explicit 'green procurement', 'social aspects', or 'innovation' criteria are not highlighted in the provided summary, suggesting these might be detailed in the full documents.