Restoration of the state-significant watercourse Punču grāvis, land improvement cadastral code 384512:01, pik.00/00-85/35 in Salgale parish, Jelgava municipality, Iecava parish, Bauska municipality

This tender presents a moderate quality assessment, demonstrating good clarity and legal compliance in some aspects, but is significantly hampered by restricted document access and notable data inconsistencies across the tender information.

The tender defines an open procedure, uses a relevant CPV code, and specifies reasonable deadlines. It is stated to be EU Funded and WTO/GPA compliant. However, the flagged 'Restricted document access' is a significant concern for transparency and legal compliance, as full and easy access to tender documents is a fundamental requirement.

The tender title and description are clear. Performance conditions refer to technical specifications and contract draft, which is standard. While the automated check flags 'No evaluation criteria specified', the summary of Document 5 explicitly states evaluation is based on 'lowest price or cost', indicating criteria are defined within the documents. The discrepancy between the flag and document summary creates minor confusion.

Most essential information such as title, reference, organization, value, deadlines, and location is provided. Documents are attached and summarized. Contract duration is indicated in a document summary. However, the 'Restricted document access' impacts the completeness of publicly available information, even if the documents themselves exist.

The tender benefits from a disclosed value, reasonable submission deadlines, and objective evaluation criteria (lowest price/cost). E-procurement is indicated. However, the 'Restricted document access' is a significant barrier to equal access to information for all potential bidders, directly impacting the fairness of the process. There is no indication of tailored requirements.

Electronic submission is indicated by 'E-Procurement' and the opening place. Contract duration and EU funding are specified. The main practical drawback is the 'Restricted document access' which hinders easy review and download of tender documents. The contradiction regarding 'No e-submission' from automated checks creates minor confusion.

While basic fields are populated and dates are logical, there are multiple significant contradictions within the provided data. Specifically, the automated checks contradict document summaries regarding evaluation criteria, e-submission, and contract duration. This indicates poor data consistency in the overall tender presentation.

The tender is EU Funded, which often implies a higher standard. However, the automated checks explicitly state 'Not green procurement', 'No social criteria', and 'No innovation focus'. For a works contract, there are typically opportunities to integrate sustainability aspects, which appear to be missed here.