Ubezpieczenie zdrowotne pracowników Uniwersytetu Daugavpils

This tender for Daugavpils University employee health insurance is generally well-structured, with clear identification of the procuring entity and subject matter. Key documents are provided, and the submission deadline is reasonable. However, the undisclosed estimated value and lack of specific technical and financial requirements could be improved.

The tender adheres to standard procurement procedures with a clear open competition type and classification codes. Deadlines appear reasonable for the scope. The main concern is the lack of disclosed estimated value, which can be a regulatory requirement in some contexts, but given the positive aspects, the score is moderate.

The title and description are clear regarding the service required. Mandatory exclusion grounds and eligibility requirements are mentioned, though technical and financial capability requirements are not detailed within the provided text, relying on attached documents. The core requirements are stated as being in attached documents.

Essential information such as the organization, title, type, procedure, and deadlines are present. Contract duration is specified. However, the estimated value is missing, and specific technical and financial requirements are not elaborated in the main text, necessitating a review of attached documents.

The tender is an open competition, accessible via e-procurement, and uses objective criteria as outlined in the referenced documents ('Nolikums', 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības'). The main fairness concern stems from the 'Restricted document access' flag, which, if accurate, significantly impacts transparency and accessibility for potential bidders. The absence of specific financial and technical requirements could also be a point of contention if they are not clearly detailed in the linked documents.

The tender utilizes e-procurement, which is a positive step for practicality. The contract duration is clearly stated. However, the absence of explicit mention of e-submission for the documents (though implied by e-procurement) and the lack of specific financing information or contract start date reduce its practicality score.

Key fields such as title, reference, organization, and deadlines are populated logically. The tender is active, with no disputes or suspensions indicated. The dates provided (Reveal, Submission, Opening) are sequential and make sense in the context of an active tender.

There is no mention of green procurement, social aspects, innovation, or EU funding within the provided tender details. This suggests a lack of focus on these important procurement considerations.