Supply and installation of furniture at Suntaži Primary School

This tender presents significant concerns regarding document accessibility, which critically undermines legal compliance and fairness, despite otherwise clear and well-structured requirements. The lack of explicit contract duration and sustainability criteria are also notable gaps.

The tender defines a clear open procedure, assigns an appropriate CPV code, and indicates compliance with EU/WTO/GPA characteristics. Mandatory exclusion grounds are referenced. However, the 'Restricted document access' flag is a critical legal compliance issue, severely impacting transparency and equal treatment, which are fundamental principles of public procurement law.

The tender description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements are well-documented, referring to specific annexes for technical specifications, financial offers, and general regulations. Evaluation criteria, based solely on the lowest price without VAT, are explicitly stated in the financial requirements, despite an automated flag suggesting otherwise.

All basic information, financial details, timeline, and classification are provided. Requirements and evaluation criteria are defined. However, the actual contract duration is not explicitly stated, with 'Tender Valid: 6 months' referring only to the bid's validity, which is a notable omission.

The 'Restricted document access' is a critical flaw that fundamentally compromises fairness and equal opportunity for all potential bidders. While the estimated value is disclosed, deadlines are reasonable, and evaluation criteria are objective (lowest price), the inability to access full documentation makes fair competition impossible.

E-procurement is indicated by 'Characteristics: E-Procurement' and 'Opening Place: Elektronisko iepirkumu sistēma', which is positive. However, the 'Restricted document access' significantly hinders practical participation. The absence of a clear contract start date and duration further reduces practicality for planning.

Key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no reported disputes or suspensions. While automated checks flagged some inconsistencies (e.g., evaluation criteria, e-submission), the AI-extracted content and basic information provided are largely consistent internally.

The tender is EU-funded, which often implies higher standards. However, there is no explicit mention or inclusion of green procurement criteria, social aspects, or innovation focus within the provided documentation.