Nadzór budowlany nad pracami I i II etapu zagospodarowania terenu przedszkola „Pasaulīte”

This tender is moderately complete and fair, with some clarity and practicality concerns. Key details are present, but the lack of disclosed value and explicit evaluation criteria impacts fairness and clarity.

The tender appears to comply with general procurement regulations, including the provision of a CPV code and a clear procedure (open competition). Deadlines are reasonable. No obvious legal disputes are mentioned. However, the 'Restricted document access' issue noted in the AI check raises a potential flag for full legal compliance if it hinders access to essential tender information.

The title and description of the services are clear. However, the absence of specified evaluation criteria makes it difficult for bidders to understand how their submissions will be assessed, impacting overall clarity.

Most basic information is present, including deadlines, duration, and the organization. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, which is a significant omission for completeness. While four documents are listed, the 'Restricted document access' suggests potential gaps in what is fully accessible.

The tender uses an open procedure and e-procurement, promoting fairness. However, the undisclosed estimated value and the lack of specified evaluation criteria reduce transparency and can be perceived as less fair to potential bidders. There are no explicit requirements tailored to specific companies in the provided text.

The tender is flagged as 'E-Procurement', indicating an e-submission process. A contract start date is not explicitly mentioned but can be inferred from the duration and submission deadline. Financing information is not disclosed, and there's no mention of green procurement, social aspects, or innovation, limiting its practical appeal in these areas.

Key fields such as title, reference number, organization, dates, and CPV code are populated. The tender is active with no listed disputes or suspensions, and the dates appear logically consistent. This category scores well due to the presence of essential data.

The tender does not explicitly mention any requirements for green procurement, social aspects, or innovation. It is not indicated as EU funded. This lack of focus significantly lowers the sustainability score.