Extension of the water intake pipe in Daugava for the needs of the LNB cooling system

This tender for the Latvian National Library's cooling system extension is well-structured with detailed requirements and comprehensive documentation. However, significant concerns regarding restricted document access and contradictions in key data fields, particularly concerning e-submission and evaluation criteria, detract from its overall quality and fairness.

The procedure type is clearly defined, CPV code is appropriate, and there are no reported disputes. While the 'Nolikums' and 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības' documents suggest adherence to regulations, the 'Restricted document access' and initial contradiction regarding evaluation criteria (though assumed resolved by document content) are notable concerns. The contradiction on e-submission also impacts compliance with modern procurement standards.

The project description is clear and unambiguous. AI-extracted requirements are detailed and consistently refer to specific documents ('Nolikums', 'Iepirkuma priekšmeta prasības, 1.versija') for further information. Assuming the evaluation criteria are clearly specified within the referenced document, the tender's clarity is high.

All essential basic information, including title, reference, organization, estimated value, deadlines, and contract duration, is provided. A comprehensive set of 11 tender documents, including required forms and a draft contract, are listed and summarized, indicating thorough preparation.

The 'Restricted document access' is a critical flaw, severely undermining transparency and equal treatment for potential bidders. While requirements do not appear tailored, and the value is disclosed, the lack of full document access and the contradiction regarding e-submission capabilities significantly compromise the fairness of the procurement process.

The 'Restricted document access' and the contradiction between 'E-Procurement' characteristic and 'No e-submission' issue create significant practical hurdles for bidders. The absence of a direct, publicly accessible document URL further complicates participation. Contract duration and financing information are available.

While most key fields are populated and dates are logical, there are two significant contradictions: one regarding the availability of e-submission and another concerning the presence of evaluation criteria. These inconsistencies can lead to confusion and undermine the reliability of the tender information.

The tender is EU funded, which often implies higher standards. However, the automated checks explicitly indicate a lack of green procurement, social criteria, or an innovation focus within the tender requirements. This suggests missed opportunities to integrate sustainability aspects.