Construction works for the Norupe Tree Nursery's melioration system

This tender for melioration works demonstrates good procedural compliance and detailed requirements, but is significantly hampered by the lack of disclosed estimated value, restricted document access, and critically, the absence of specified evaluation criteria, which undermines fairness and clarity.

The tender exhibits good legal compliance with a clearly defined open procedure, appropriate CPV codes, and no active disputes. The submission deadline is reasonable. However, the estimated value is not disclosed, and the AI flagged 'Restricted document access', which are transparency concerns impacting full compliance.

The project description is clear, and AI-extracted requirements for eligibility, technical capability, and submission are detailed. Performance conditions are referenced. However, the critical issue of 'No evaluation criteria specified' significantly reduces clarity, making it difficult for bidders to understand how their offers will be assessed.

Basic information, deadlines, duration, and location are provided. While many documents are attached, the estimated value is not disclosed, and evaluation criteria are missing. Crucially, the 'Darbu apjomi / tāme' (Volumes of work / estimate) document has 'No content extracted', which is a fundamental omission for a works tender.

Requirements appear generic, and the deadline is reasonable. However, 'Restricted document access' and the undisclosed estimated value significantly hinder transparency. The absence of specified evaluation criteria is a major fairness concern, as it introduces subjectivity and makes it impossible for bidders to prepare competitive offers based on clear assessment rules.

The tender indicates 'E-Procurement' and 'Opening Place: Elektronisko iepirkumu sistēma', suggesting electronic submission, though an automated check flagged 'No e-submission', creating a contradiction. 'Restricted document access' poses a practical hurdle. No explicit contract start date or financing information (estimated value) is available.

Most key fields are populated, and dates are logical and consistent. There are no disputes or suspensions. The primary inconsistencies are the undisclosed estimated value and the conflicting information regarding e-submission support.

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.