Dismantling of the existing lift, supply and installation of a new lift

This tender for elevator works demonstrates good clarity and legal compliance, with detailed requirements referenced in supporting documents. However, significant concerns arise from restricted document access and the undisclosed estimated value, severely impacting fairness and completeness.

The tender correctly defines the procedure type as 'open' and assigns an appropriate CPV code. Deadlines are reasonable, and no disputes or suspensions are reported. However, the non-disclosure of the estimated value, while not necessarily a legal breach, represents a transparency deficit that impacts best practice compliance.

The tender's description is clear and unambiguous. Requirements are well-structured and documented by referencing specific documents like 'Nolikums' and 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības'. Performance conditions are clearly stated by reference. The AI-extracted requirements are comprehensive and guide bidders to the relevant documents for details.

All basic information, including title, reference, organization, deadlines, duration, and location, is provided. All five tender documents are attached and summarized. The primary gap in completeness is the non-disclosure of the estimated contract value, which is crucial for bidders to fully assess the project scope.

The 'Restricted document access' is a critical issue that severely compromises fairness, preventing equal and transparent access to essential information for all potential bidders. The non-disclosure of the estimated value further reduces transparency, making it difficult for bidders to assess the opportunity fairly. While e-procurement is indicated, the restricted access overshadows this positive aspect.

Electronic submission is supported, and the contract duration is clearly specified. However, the restricted document access creates a significant practical barrier for bidders to prepare and submit a compliant offer. The absence of an estimated value also hinders bidders' ability to conduct proper financial planning and risk assessment.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent, including the clarification update. However, there are notable contradictions between the automated check results (e.g., 'Missing evaluation criteria', 'No e-submission') and the explicit information provided in the tender (e.g., 'detailed evaluation criteria', 'E-Procurement', 'Offers must be submitted electronically').

The tender does not explicitly include any green procurement, social aspects, or innovation focus. It is also not indicated as EU funded, which often correlates with higher sustainability standards. This represents a missed opportunity to integrate broader public value considerations.